I addressed the analogy, I've even gone as far as assuming the point that an accurate perception for an environment would be selected over a less accurate perception of an environment. The point you seem to ignore is that one needs the Laws of Logic to do so. I don't know what point there is to discuss the analogy nor the accurate perception selective power when both have been agreed upon.
I'm afraid you didn't actually address the analogy. You argued that acing the test would not increase fitness. Then you argued that acing the test requires the laws of logic. This missed the point of the analogy entirely. The point is that acing the test, which is analogous to increasing fitness, is more likely if one accurately perceives the questions, which is analogous to having accurate faculties. Do you agree with this? If no, why? If yes, then you have the answer to your oft-repeated question of how evolution could be expected to produce accurate faculties even though it is not strictly necessary that it should do so. In other words, I know you have conceded that accurate faculties would have an advantage over inaccurate faculties but do you also concede that, for this reason, accurate faculties are more likely to be produced by evolution than inaccurate ones?
It is in the fact that the laws of logic are necessary to that ability and that they are not an evolved feature.
I agree that the Laws of Logic are not evolved. But the ability to be aware of them is. Let me lay out the terminology again just so we're clear:
Physical Laws: The nature of our reality, e.g. something cannot simultaneously be A and Not A
Laws of logic: the formal codifications of physical reality, e.g. The law of Identity
NOTE: If you disagree that Laws of Logic are merely formal codifications of Physical Law, please explain how we came to formulate something like the Law of Identity.
Accurate faculties: the means by which we are able to perceive physical laws so that they may be codified into Laws of Logic.
So I agree that the Physical Law that A cannot also be Not A is true independently of human existence. I also agree that the Law of Identity is true independently of our existence because it is simply reflecting that physical reality. And I agree that, because they are true regardless of our existence, they are not products of evolution. But this does't alter the fact that (as I think you have conceded at this point) evolution is more likely to produce accurate faculties and thus it is entirely reasonable that we have evolved faculties which accurately perceive the Physical Law that A cannot also be Not A.
As I said above, Laws of Logic are not evolved, but our ability to perceive them is.