Q20 - Some flowering plant species,

[adamdeskus]

I ruled out all answers A-D; however, I still have a bone to pick with E. The stimulus says that "often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that it can feed from-and thus pollinate-only a single species of plant." From that we infer that (E) the total destruction of the habitat of some plant species could cause some bee species to become extinct.

Here's the thing, this is making a strong assumption that the "pollinating species" is the same as "bee species."

Oh, now that I read the question stem one more time, I see that it is asking for what "most strongly supports" the following. Please advise as to whether this is why the assumption described above is allowed. If this was a MUST BE TRUE question there would be a problem here, correct?

[timmydoeslsat]

The word could in the answer choice can tie in the statement in the stimulus of:

"Often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that it can feed from-and thus pollinate-only a single species of plant."

Pollinating species could include bees.

It is tough to state whether this answer choice would be an answer choice in a MUST BE TRUE question.

I do not see anything in the stimulus that precludes bees from being in this group. Thus, you could infer that it must be true that it could.

[jimmy902o]

I understand why E is correct, but why is B wrong?

The passage states that "if careless applications of pesticides destroy the pollinating bee species, the plant species itself can no longer reproduce." Thus is bee species are destroyed so are plant species. Right? Isn't this essentially what answer choice B says?

[timmydoeslsat]

I understand why E is correct, but why is B wrong?

The passage states that "if careless applications of pesticides destroy the pollinating bee species, the plant species itself can no longer reproduce." Thus is bee species are destroyed so are plant species. Right? Isn't this essentially what answer choice B says?

No, these are different situations.

The stimulus basically does this:
_________________________________________________
Some plants species must be pollinated by this one certain pollinating species

Some pollinating species must pollinate and feed from this one certain plant species.

If you carelessly apply pesticides that destroy pollinating bee species, then the plant species cannot reproduce.
_________________________________________________

This conditional statement is referring to the idea of how we can have some plant species that get pollinated from ONE AND ONLY ONE species of pollinators. So we are denying from the plants, something that is necessary for them to survive.

With B, we cannot infer that.

If we have a situation where the sole pollinator of a certain plant species is not in danger of extinction, that is great. But we have no information in the stimulus about having a case of this.

[jonathanmoneymaker]

Isn't (B) untrue because it's a mistaken negation? If a bee species goes extinct it can directly affect the health of a specific plant species but if the bees are not going extinct it doesn't automatically make other causes of extinction for the plant unavailable.

My issue is with (A) which suggests that a similar symbiotic relationship has always existed and (D) is almost an exact match to the first and second sentences.

[kylelitfin]

Isn't (B) untrue because it's a mistaken negation? If a bee species goes extinct it can directly affect the health of a specific plant species but if the bees are not going extinct it doesn't automatically make other causes of extinction for the plant unavailable.

My issue is with (A) which suggests that a similar symbiotic relationship has always existed and (D) is almost an exact match to the first and second sentences.

Here is how I reasoned the answer, perhaps it will be helpful (it may in fact make no sense at all):

As I read through the stimulus I noticed it was combining some groups with specific singular groups and vice versa; so right off the bat I knew the answer most likely had to use terms like could/may/possibly etc.

(A): The stimulus directly speaks of plant evolution so who knows how they survived upon inception? There are so many possibilities. Maybe these plants and bees were on separate parts of Pangea for all we know. This cannot be supported.

(B): Mistaken Negation. This cannot be supported.

(C): Any species of plant? Perhaps. Nowhere in the stimulus does it say this though. Could be true, but nothing in the stimulus can support this.

(D): There isn't anything in the stimulus that provides us with adequate information to distinguish characteristics between species of bees. This cannot be supported. Could it be true? Sure, but I don't see anything to support this claim.

(E): Bingo. Look at the second and third sentences of the stimulus.

To paraphrase: Quite often a well adapted pollinating species can only feed off of and pollinate a single plant species. Sometimes the reversal of this is true as well.

Some Pollinating Species --can feed/pollinate--> single species of plant.

Some Plant Species --can feed/pollinate--> single species of bee.

Seems to suggest kind of a soft: Some Plant Species Survival <---> Some Pollinating Species Survival.

With this in mind, the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of some plant species habitats could negatively effect a pollinating species livelihood. It could definitely do this based upon the information we have.

Hopefully this is somewhat helpful!

[brandonhsi]

Hello,

I know (B) is wrong based on the last sentence in the stimulus. But how about the the rest of stimulus, saying some bees depends on some plants, and some plants depends on some bees? If I ignore the last sentence, is the (B) wrong because of the stronger language, unlikely, used here? I am thinking if some softer language (e.g. it is possible the plant species it pollinates wouldn't become extinct) is used instead, the (B) would be correct?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

In this question we are told that:

-Some plant species are entirely dependent on bees.
-Often (which just means sometimes) a species of bee only feeds from one plant.
-Also sometimes, a plant species only relies on one bee species.
-If we use pesticides in a way that destroys the bee species, the plant species is screwed.

This is an inference question, so we want to use the above to support one of the following.

(A) is way too broad to support. We don't know anything about the earliest species.

(B) might seem tempting but on closer review swaps the logic around. The paragraph tells us that if the sole pollinator DOES become extinct then that means the plant species is also in trouble. Not the other way around. It's not a matter of soft or strong language. The point is that we aren't told what happens to the plant species if the bee species does NOT go extinct. The plant species could very will still go extinct for another reason, like a mass flood or an astroid.

(C) hmm. Seems a bit extreme. ANY species of plant? Not sure we have support for this.

(D) "Most" feels extreme, too. We are repeatedly told "some" in this question (or "often" which just means "sometimes").

(E) Ah! Yes. This is supported by the logic that if the one species goes extinct, and the other species is solely reliant on it, the non-extinct species is still in trouble. Yes, it's an inference, but it's the most supportable of the five.

[brandonhsi]

Hi Mary,

Thanks a lot for your detailed response! I have another quick point I want to confirm with you.

I am thinking that since (B) is a conditional statement (something guarantees something), in order for (B) to be a valid inference, the premise needs to have somehow strong statements. Am I correct?

Thanks!

Brandon

[maryadkins]

In general, yes...but I think your application of that logic here could lead you in the wrong direction. For one, the premises DO have strong language: "entirely dependent," "only source," "only a single species" (two of those), "can no longer reproduce." That's a lot of strong language!

The problem with (B) isn't that it has strong/conditional/guarantee-type language and the stimulus doesn't. The problem with (B) is that it reverses the logic that IS in the stimulus.

Finally, notice that the necessary clause in (B) uses "unlikely" which tempers it a bit. It's not saying something will definitely happen but that it's unlikely to happen.

Maybe revisit the stimulus of this question and see if you can diagram or at least conceptualize all of the guarantees in there...

Hope this helps!

[sclw64]

Hi~ I am wondering if I am the only one confused about the meaning of the sentence "Often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that it can feed from- and thus pollinate- only a single species of plant"?
I interpret it into two possible meanings:
1. Bees feed on only one food. (like what most people understand)
2. Bees need feed on many kinds of food and get nutrients from them, but bees CAN/Be ABLE TO eat only one of the food without dying for some reasons such as lack of nutrition.

Thanks.