Question

It can be inferred from the passage that in species in which vigilant behavior is directed at predators, the tendency of the animals to be more vigilant in smaller groups than in larger ones would most likely be minimized if which of the following were true?

• A. The vigilance of animals on the periphery of a group always exceeded that of animals located in its interior, even when predators were not in the area.
• B. The risk of capture for individuals in a group was the same, whether they were located in the interior of the group or on its periphery.
• C. Animals on the periphery of a group tended to be less capable of defending themselves from attack by predators than animals located in the interior of the group.
• D. Animals on the periphery of a group tended to bear marks that were more distinctive to predators than animals located in the interior of the group.
• E. Animals on the periphery of a group tended to have shorter life spans than animals located in the interior of the group.
• A. The second paragraph relies on different evidence in drawing a conclusion similar to that expressed in the first paragraph.
• B. The second paragraph provides further elaboration on why an assertion made at the end of the first paragraph proves to be true in most cases.
• C. The second paragraph provides additional information in support of a hypothesis stated in the first paragraph.
• D. The second paragraph provides an example of a case in which the assumption described in the first paragraph is unwarranted.
• J. The second paragraph describes a phenomenon that has the same cause as the phenomenon described in the first paragraph.
• A. The larger the group of animals, the higher the probability that individuals in the interior of the group will exhibit vigilant behavior.
• B. Vigilant behavior exhibited by individuals in small groups is more effective at warding off predators than the same behavior exhibited by individuals in larger groups.
• C. Vigilant behavior is easier to analyze in species that are preyed upon by many different predators than in species that are preyed upon by relatively few of them.
• D. The term "vigilant," when used in reference to the behavior of animals, does not refer exclusively to behavior aimed at avoiding predators.
  (E) The term "vigilant," when used in reference to the behavior of animals, usually refers to behavior exhibited by large groups of animals.
• A. The avoidance of predators is more important to an animal's survival than is the quest for food.
• B. Vigilant behavior aimed at predators is seldom more beneficial to groups of animals than to individual animals.
• C. Different species of animals often develop different strategies for dealing with predators.
• D. The size of a group of animals does not necessarily reflect its success in finding food.
• S. Similar behavior in different species of animals does not necessarily serve the same purpose.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks what would weaken or "minimize" the phenomenon described in the first paragraph. We need to identify the core reason given for the phenomenon and then find the option that negates that reason.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The first paragraph explains the tendency as follows:
\begin{itemize} \item Premise: Individuals on the edge (periphery) of a group are at greater risk from predators. \item Consequence 1: Because of this risk, periphery animals are more vigilant. \item Premise 2: Smaller groups have a larger proportion of animals on the periphery. \item Conclusion: Therefore, animals in smaller groups are, on average, more vigilant. \end{itemize} To minimize this entire effect, we must attack the foundational premise: that being on the periphery is riskier. If the risk were the same everywhere, the whole chain of logic would fall apart.
Let's analyze the options:
\begin{itemize} \item (A) This describes vigilant behavior but doesn't change the underlying risk factor. \item (B) This directly states that the risk of capture is the same for all individuals, regardless of location. If this were true, there would be no reason for periphery animals to be more vigilant, and therefore no reason for smaller groups to have a higher average vigilance. This effectively minimizes the tendency. \item (C) This would strengthen, not minimize, the tendency by making the periphery even more dangerous. \item (D) This would also strengthen the tendency by making periphery animals easier targets. \item (E) This is irrelevant to the risk of capture by predators and vigilant behavior. \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
By making the risk of capture uniform throughout the group, option (B) removes the fundamental cause for increased vigilance on the periphery, thereby minimizing the overall effect described.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks about the structure of the passage and how the two paragraphs relate to each other logically. We need to analyze the main point of each paragraph and see how they connect.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
First paragraph's main point: It presents "one explanation" for increased vigilance in smaller groups, which "assumes that the vigilant behavior... is aimed at predators."
Second paragraph's main point: It begins with the transition word "However," signaling a contrast or exception. It then states, "a different explanation is necessary in cases where the vigilant behavior is not directed at predators." It provides the specific example of great blue herons, whose vigilance is related to finding food, not avoiding predators.
Therefore, the second paragraph explicitly presents a case (the herons) where the central assumption of the first paragraph (that vigilance is about predators) is not valid or is "unwarranted."
Let's evaluate the options:
\begin{itemize} \item (A) The conclusions are different (predator avoidance vs. food seeking). \item (B) and (C) The second paragraph contradicts, rather than supports or elaborates on, the first paragraph's hypothesis. \item (D) This perfectly describes the relationship. The second paragraph gives a case study where the first paragraph's assumption is shown to be unwarranted. \item (E) The causes described are explicitly different (predators vs. poor feeding conditions). \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
The second paragraph introduces a counterexample to show that the predator-based assumption of the first paragraph does not apply in all situations.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is an inference question that asks for the main takeaway or a conclusion the author would support based on the entire passage. We need to find the statement that is best supported by the information presented in both paragraphs.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author presents two distinct explanations for vigilant behavior. The first paragraph discusses vigilance as a defense against predators. The second paragraph discusses vigilance as a strategy for finding food. By presenting both of these as valid explanations in different contexts, the author implicitly argues that the term "vigilant" has a broader meaning than just looking for predators.
Let's evaluate the options based on this understanding:
\begin{itemize} \item (A) The passage suggests the periphery, not the interior, is more vigilant in predator-avoidance scenarios. \item (B) The passage discusses the frequency of vigilant behavior, not its effectiveness. \item (C) The passage does not provide any information about the ease of analysis. \item (D) This statement is the central inference to be drawn from the passage as a whole. The author's primary purpose in writing the second paragraph is to show that vigilance is not always about predators. Therefore, the author would certainly agree that the term is not used exclusively for that purpose. \item (E) The passage states that animals are more vigilant in smaller groups, not larger ones. \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
The entire structure of the passage, contrasting a predator-based explanation with a food-based one, supports the conclusion that "vigilant" behavior is a broad term not limited to predator avoidance.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks what assertion is supported by the passage as a whole. We need to find the statement that synthesizes the information from both paragraphs.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The passage discusses a "similar behavior"—vigilance, specifically "looking up"—in two different contexts.
\begin{itemize} \item Paragraph 1: It describes vigilance in some animals as a behavior aimed at detecting predators. \item Paragraph 2: It describes vigilance in great blue herons as a behavior aimed at finding better feeding locations. \end{itemize} The key point of the passage is the contrast between these two explanations. The author shows that the same action (looking up) can serve entirely different functions (survival from predation vs. foraging for food) depending on the species and its circumstances.
Let's evaluate the options:
\begin{itemize} \item (A) The passage presents both predation and food-finding as critical to survival, but it does not rank them in importance.
\item (B) The passage discusses the frequency of vigilant behavior, not its benefit to groups vs. individuals.
\item (C) This is a broad statement that may be true, but the passage focuses on a single behavior (vigilance) with different purposes, not different behaviors.
\item (D) The passage suggests smaller heron flocks are a result of poor feeding conditions, but it doesn't make a general claim that group size is unrelated to success.
\item (E) This statement perfectly captures the central point of the passage. The "similar behavior" is vigilance, and the passage explicitly demonstrates that it does not "serve the same purpose" in all cases. \end{itemize} Step 3: Final Answer:
The comparison of the two explanations for vigilant behavior directly supports the assertion that a similar behavior can have different purposes in different species.