Q8

[jgmartin82]

8. (C)

Question Type: Synthesis (14-16, 17-19, 40-42)

We hope that our read for structure has prepared us well for these types of questions. Dangerous wrong answer traps for main point and other synthesis questions include narrow scope. The LSAT loves to feed us truths from the passage that miss the big picture. We’ll need our answer to utilize information learned from multiple pieces of the passage.

(A) is narrow scope. It gives us some truths about secondary substances, but where’s the discussion about evolution? That needs to be in there in some shape or form. Eliminate.

(B) is contradicted. It almost looks good, but the range of secondary substances in plants didn’t narrow. Lines 8-10 directly contradict the statement. Secondary substances are a multitudinous array... Eliminate.

(C) brings together the major ideas of the passage in an accurate way: evolution and interaction, smell and taste, and secondary substances.

(D) is tempting. However, it too is too narrow. Taste and smell are conspicuously absent from the choice, and it includes what was a passing fact about secondary substances as part of the main idea.

(E) is contradicted. The passage focused on how mutations and competition led to the development of secondary substances, not how the development of secondary substances led to competition as (E) suggests.

[emilyostertag]

I'm still not quite seeing the difference between C and E. I can't see how E is really contradicted in the passage. Could you elaborate on this? thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

(E) would be better if it read
"Because plants and plant-eating insects are in constant competition with each other, plant mutations that provide plants with a survival advantage have led to the secondary substances in plants we see today."

Let's consider a chain of events:
The doorbell rings and this causes the dog to bark.

Which of these is correct:

(C)
The ringing of the doorbell results in large part from the barking of the dog.
The barking of the dog results in large part from the ringing of the doorbell.

(E)
Because the doorbell rang, the dog barked.
Because the dog barked, the doorbell rang.

Hopefully you judged these two to be the correct ones:
(C)
The ringing of the doorbell results in large part from the barking of the dog.
The barking of the dog results in large part from the ringing of the doorbell.

(E)
Because the doorbell rang, the dog barked.
Because the dog barked, the doorbell rang.

That's essentially the difference between (C) and (E)'s wording.
(C)'s wording is "The effect results from the cause".
(E)'s wording is "Because of the cause, you get the effect".

(C) says the secondary substances (effect) result in large part from the evolutionary fight between insects and plants (cause).

(E) says BECAUSE of the secondary substances (cause), you get the evolutionary fight between insects and plants (effect).

If we wanted to state the cause of why plants are in a continual process of competition with plant-eating insects, then we would say
"Because plant-eating insects want to eat plants and plants don't want to be eaten, plants have come to participate in a continuing process of competition with plant-eating insects."

Hope this helps.

[andrewgong01]

I am still a bit unsure of the difference between "C" and "D". I have trouble eliminating "D" with confidence because it seems to say the same thing as "C" that evolutionary pressures have influenced the secondary substances of plants.

Is it because of the final part that says "but tend to be similar among closely related species" that makes the scope too narrow because the first part of the answer choice seems to capture the entire passage just as well ( aside from not saying secondary substances= taste+smell of plants)

8. (C)

Question Type: Synthesis (14-16, 17-19, 40-42)

We hope that our read for structure has prepared us well for these types of questions. Dangerous wrong answer traps for main point and other synthesis questions include narrow scope. The LSAT loves to feed us truths from the passage that miss the big picture. We’ll need our answer to utilize information learned from multiple pieces of the passage.

(A) is narrow scope. It gives us some truths about secondary substances, but where’s the discussion about evolution? That needs to be in there in some shape or form. Eliminate.

(B) is contradicted. It almost looks good, but the range of secondary substances in plants didn’t narrow. Lines 8-10 directly contradict the statement. Secondary substances are a multitudinous array... Eliminate.

(C) brings together the major ideas of the passage in an accurate way: evolution and interaction, smell and taste, and secondary substances.

(D) is tempting. However, it too is too narrow. Taste and smell are conspicuously absent from the choice, and it includes what was a passing fact about secondary substances as part of the main idea.

(E) is contradicted. The passage focused on how mutations and competition led to the development of secondary substances, not how the development of secondary substances led to competition as (E) suggests.

[ohthatpatrick]

I always first notice extreme language as a red flag, so I thought the "tends to" was probably killing this, but sure enough in line 12-14 we get support for that claim.

However, in the same sentence, we learn that "only a few secondary substances" occur in any one species of plant.

(D) says that "the secondary substances in plants have become numerous".

That's saying that "plants have lots of secondary substances in them", which is the opposite of what we're told. It's not saying "among all plants, there is a large sum of secondary substances".

That would sound like "Due to insects, secondary substances among plants have become numerous".

Even if we remove that hair-splitting and allow (D) to be "accurately" talking about the number of secondary substances across all plant species, it still has a worse emphasis than (C).

Why are secondary substances interesting?

Because they are high in number?
Or because they give plants their distinctive taste/smell?