VeritasKarishma wrote:
rphardu wrote:
Editor: Articles in Gardening Magazine often spur sales of the plants they describe, particularly among people new to gardening. Accordingly, we will no longer publish articles or accept advertisements praising the beauty of rare wildflowers. Most such plants sold to gardeners have been difficult to propagate under cultivation, so plant sellers often collect them in the wild. Our new policy is part of our efforts to half this yearly plundering of our native plant populations.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the wisdom of the magazine's new policy as a way of pursuing the intended effect?
(A) When people new to gardening buy plants, they often fail to take adequate care of the plants that they buy and become discouraged from buying those varieties again.
(B) Plant sellers who sell rare wildflowers have no reasonably inexpensive alternate way to offer their wares directly to new gardens.
(C) The demand for rare wildflowers rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected in the wild by plant sellers.
(D) The propagation of rare wildflowers often depends on the plant's interaction with other organisms in their environment such as plants that create suitable soil conditions or insects and birds that disperse seeds.
(E) Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.
Wildflowers don't propagate under cultivation and hence are plundered from wild.
Articles in Magazine often spur sales of the plants they describe, particularly among people new to gardening.
Aim - To halve the plundering of native plant populations
Plan - Don't print articles on wildflower
(Since it is a new plan, the assumption is that till now the magazine was printing articles on wildflowers. Hence not printing articles may reduce the demand)
One of the options needs to describe why the plan may not lead to the aim.
(A) When people new to gardening buy plants, they often fail to take adequate care of the plants that they buy and become discouraged from buying those varieties again.
If people new to gardening have bought the plants once, the plundering is done. Even if they do not buy again, there will be more "new" people who will buy. Hence curbing the publication of articles may reduce the number of "new people" who buy wildflowers. It doesn't explain why the plan MAY NOT lead to the aim. Hence not the answer.
(B) Plant sellers who sell rare wildflowers have no reasonably inexpensive alternate way to offer their wares directly to new gardens.
If anything, it strengthens the plan. The sellers do not have any other inexpensive way to reach out to people new to gardening. So if the articles are stopped, possibly the demand of wildflowers will reduce and hence the aim will be fulfilled.
(C) The demand for rare wildflowers rarely exceeds the number of such plants that can be collected in the wild by plant sellers.
We want to REDUCE the demand so that plundering from the wild REDUCES from current numbers. Information in (C) is irrelevant to our plan.
(D) The propagation of rare wildflowers often depends on the plant's interaction with other organisms in their environment such as plants that create suitable soil conditions or insects and birds that disperse seeds.
The conditions for propagation are irrelevant. They propagate in the wild and we want to reduce the plundering there.
adkikani - Whether they survive in the gardens of people who are new to gardening is immaterial. If the new people have bought the plants once, plundering has happened. They may not buy the plants again but there will be other new people. This option is similar to option (A) as per your logic. If (A) is wrong, then this is wrong too.
(E) Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.
Revenues from sales of wild plants are supporting the discovery of tech to grow wildflowers in nurseries. If the revenues reduce, the technology may not get developed and the plundering may continue. The current plundering may actually lead to reduced plundering in the future so the plan of not printing articles may actually work against the aim.
Answer (E)
Hi
VeritasKarishma Although I understand from your analysis why wrong answers are wrong, I seem not to connect dots as to why right answer is right. I understand why the wrong answers are wrong.
And this is why this question is tough. Right answer is too hard to digest.
Please find my reasoning on why E may not have any effect on the plan.
Premises -
Publish the articles - > Increase in demand/sale.
Increase in demand - > hunting of wild plants.
Thus a cause and effect is given to us in the premises.
Conclusion - Lets abandon the publishing of articles, so that we can reduce the hunting of wild plants by 50%.
To me, this conclusion is devoid of any gaps and totally flows from the premises provided.
As in the editor rightly assumes that absence of cause (publishing of articles) will lead to absence of the effect.
In terms of casual reasoning, this is a very valid inference.
So let us look at option E now.
Option E says,
Funding from the sales of such plants may actually help save the wild plants in future.
This suggests it is okay to keep publishing the articles. In this sense it makes editor to reconsider their claim.
But -
Even if the funding reduces, how does it matter?
Because we already know if we stop publishing the articles, the demand will come down and plant sellers may not really need to go hunting these plants.
So the point I want to raise is that - Whatever the case may be with option E, the conclusion still stays intact.
I know its an official question and there is very little to debate about the correctness of it, I still would like to hear from you about what you think of my reasoning and if its wrong, where do I go wrong.
Thank you
Posted from my mobile deviceThere is a gap in the argument's reasoning. It is not perfect.
Articles in Gardening Magazine often spur sales of the plants they describe, particularly
to gardening.
Magazine articles spur sales among new people.
Aim: Halt this yearly plundering of our native plant populations.
Not printing articles will not spur sales among new people. But what about the regulars whose demand will likely continue?
Now see what happens with (E).
(E) Revenues from sales of plants collected in the wild are supporting the discovery of new low-cost techniques enabling rare wildflowers to be readily propagated in nurseries.
If we are able to propagate wildflowers in nurseries, all wild plundering will go away. This better serves the aim of halting the plundering. Hence, not printing articles may actually work against the aim.
close
25 Aug 2021, 21:38
