Since there is no survival value in an animal's having an organ that is able to function when all its other organs ha...

Skylar on October 4, 2019

@Jwebb Happy to help! Let's take a look.

First, let's evaluate the passage. Essentially, it is stating that there is no survival value in an animal's any one organ outlasting all other organs to the point that it functions even after the animal's death. Therefore, the efficiency of natural selection results in no organ acting in this way.

Ultimately this passage shows that, for efficiency's sake, no one part of something (in this case, an organ in an animal's body) is made to significantly outlast all of the other parts. This is the principle that we should look for when evaluating the given answer choices.

Answer choice (E) states that there is no cost-efficiency in creating a car in which one part is so high-quality that it outlasts the other parts of the car because doing so would not elevate the quality of the car. This is very similar to the passage because it shows that it is inefficient for one part of something (here, a part of a car) to be manufactured in a way so as to significantly outlast the other parts. Therefore, (E) supports the illustrated principle and is the correct answer.

Answer choice (C), while incorrect, is not quite the exact opposite of answer choice (E). In fact, we see a few key differences between the logic in choice (C) and the principle that is illustrated in both the passage and choice (E). First, instead of comparing part of something to the other parts of that same thing, (C) is comparing one model or type of thing (car) to all other models/types of that thing. Secondly, option (C) is evaluating popularity, not solely longevity. It illustrates a principle of competition, and is therefore incorrect.

Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions.

#JW on October 5, 2019

Thank you. Very clear now.