LSAT Prep test 83 LR 1 Question 10

The line reference for pt 83 – Logical Reasoning section 1 Q10: One adaptation that enables an animal species to survive despite predation…

Paradox: A paradox or discrepancy exists when an argument contains two or more seemingly inconsistent statements. It’s your job to find the answer choice that “explains the surprising result.”

Fact 1: Effective camouflage helps certain prey species survive despite predation

Fact 2: Some prey species survive a long time with only black-and-white colouration and that seems unlikely to prove effective camouflage and they have few, if any, other means to protect themselves.

Analysis: With a paradox question we have to accept both facts as true. So, the paradox is: how do these animals with the poor ability to hide from predators keep surviving? Keep in mind the stimulus says “unlikely to provide effective camouflage”, it does not say it CANNOT provide ANY camouflage. So, the answer will likely stem around this and maybe show us a way that being black-and-white can actually give these animals camouflage or protection.

A) This would just explain how the species has not gone extinct YET… and also it can actually deepen the mystery as to how they survive. This is almost implying they flourish?
B) This does not help us explain the mystery of how these black-and-white animals survive.
C) CORRECT – This means that maybe animals see in black-and-white, so maybe being black-and-white is actually camouflaging for them.
D) “Avoid encounters with one another” – why would this be relevant at all. This does not say how they avoid predator species…
E) It says ‘it is not as great of a liability at night as in day’ – that still implies it is a liability. So this does not explain how black-and-white colouring helps. Maybe, if it said “these animals only come out at night so being black helps” it could be the right answer. But, that is not what it is saying, saying the colouring is always a liability (as this answer does) would only make the paradox worse.