V03-37

Question

When scientists discuss the point in the evolutionary process at which a sense of fairness arose in human beings, one of two theories generally prevails. The first theory holds that a sense of fairness – or, more generally, morality – is a late and mostly intellectual addition to the evolutionary process. In this view morality is defined as a set of rules agreed upon by a society, permitting human beings to “rise above” the raw violence and competition found in “nature.” In certain circles this idea is known as “veneer theory,” because it posits human morality as a thin crust on a violently churning interior.

The second theory, by contrast, does not set nature and morality in direct opposition, but rather holds a sense of fairness to be as much a part of human “nature” as violence and competition. Advocates of this theory most often appeal to the behavior of other primates to argue that humans possess an innate sense of fairness common to other species of a shared evolutionary past. Orangutans, for example, have been observed to throw temper tantrums when teased by being shown an apple they are not allowed to have. Experiments with monkeys offering them two kinds of rewards for performing simple tasks have shown that they will refuse the less-preferred reward if they see their companions receiving the preferred reward for performing the same task.!

Which of the following, if added to the end of the passage, would make the best conclusion to the discussion of the second theory?

For advocates of this theory, the behavior of primates offers evidence that a sense of fairness evolved before primate species differentiated, making morality just as “natural” to humans as violence and competition. 
 In conclusion, both orangutans and monkeys were observed to raise strenuous objections when they felt that a received standard of fairness had somehow been violated. 
 In contrast to veneer theory, then, the second theory’s use of observation and experiment lends it a credibility that can not be denied.  
 Because orangutans and monkeys, at least in these examples, demonstrated a clear sense of fairness, it can reasonably be concluded that morality comes more naturally to them than it does to humans.  
 Despite the suggestion that primates such as monkeys and orangutans possess an innate sense of fairness, however, most scientists continue to accept veneer theory.

LibrarianTurtle · Answer

First Paragraph:  Sense of fairness does not come naturally but rather socially accepted norms or rules -------> With sense of fairness human beings rise above their innate raw violence and competition.
 Second Paragraph:  Sense of fairness is part of human nature just as violence and competition ------> Monkeys and Orangutans perform objections when faced with unfair situations as an act of sense of fairness ------> Monkeys, Orangutans and Humans share evolutionary past.
What the conclusion can be ?
A.) Sense of fairness evolved before primate species differentiated.  No such information given in the passage as differentiation of primate species and whether sense of fairness evolves before or after this differentiation.
B.)It is true that both primates raise strenuous objections but it is not our topic. Our topic or main idea is that showing primates as an example that human beings have innate sense of fairness (natural)
C.)With primate examples it actually lends a slight credibility to the second theory so it fits to be conclusion of the second paragraph. But how ? Veneer theory at the first paragraph has no any kinds of observation or merits, however second theory is supported by objections of primates example and therefore becomes at least in the light of given example credible.
D.)Similar to answer choice C but at the end there is a comparison which makes it the answer choice out of scope. We have no such information that innate sense of fairness comes more naturally to orangutans and monkeys than humans. 
E.)So what that most scientists continue to accept veneer theory. It doesn't make the second theory confuted or play a role of conclusion of it. 
Ans. (C)
IMO

Tetianaa · Answer

Explanation

To answer this question, it will be necessary to understand the general point the second paragraph is attempting to prove. The passage as a whole is concerned with the point in the evolutionary process at which a sense of fairness arose; the second paragraph will deal with this question in a specific way, using the examples of observations of primates as supporting detail. The best answer choice will summarize only the second paragraph, and will do so in a way that re-connects the paragraph to the concern of the passage as a whole.

A. Correct.  This answer choice summarizes the main points of the second paragraph in the phrases advocates of this theory and behavior of primates, and it restates the general concern of the passage, as stated in the first sentence.
B. Though the words in conclusion appear in this option, the sentence summarizes only the previous sentences about scientists’ observations of primates and does not sufficiently conclude the discussion of the second theory.
C. This option stresses too clear a preference for the second theory and is not appropriate within the overall purpose of the passage.
D. The idea that morality comes more easily to orangutans and monkeys is not discussed in the second paragraph.
E. Because of the assertion that most scientists prefer veneer theory, this sentence does not adequately conclude the second paragraph.

The correct answer is A

V03-37

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards