After large numbers of honeybees in Zaronia were found dead, evidence

After large numbers of honeybees in Zaronia were found dead, evidence pointed to the possibility that the bees were sickened by the fungicide Voxper, which had recently been introduced into areas where many of the bees had hives. The government banned the use of Voxper, which was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban. But after three years, bee populations had not recovered and bees were still dying. It can be concluded that Voxper was not in fact the cause of the bees' death.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The question asks us to find the choice that is an assumption on which the argument depends.

Let's review the argument to see what its conclusion is:

Voxper was not in fact the cause of the bees' death.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

The government banned the use of Voxper, which was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban. But after three years, bee populations had not recovered and bees were still dying.

We see that the author has reasoned that, since Voxper had not been used for three years and bees were still dying, Voxper was not the cause of the bees' death.

There's a gap in the argument. The evidence is about how long Voxper was not used. The conclusion is about Voxper not being the cause of the bees' death. The assumption must be information that the argument depends on to connect the evidence to the conclusion.

A. Honeybees had lived in the affected areas of Zaronia for many years before Voxper was applied.

If anything, this choice weakens the argument.

After all, if honeybees had lived in the affected areas of Zaronia for many years before Voxper was applied, then the fact that they started dying after Voxper was applied seems to indicate that Voxper WAS the cause of the bees' death.

Information that, if anything, weakens the argument cannot be an assumption on which the argument depends.

Eliminate.

B. Voxper was found to have adverse effects on insects other than honeybees.

If anything, this choice weakens the argument.

After all, the fact that Voxper was found to have adverse effects on insects other than honeybees gives us some reason to believe that Voxper has adverse effects on bees, which are insects, and thus WAS the cause of the bees' death.

Information that, if anything, weakens the argument cannot be an assumption on which the argument depends.

Eliminate.

C. The environmental effects of Voxper are unlikely to have persisted for three years following its most recent use.

Notice that this choice connects the evidence that Voxper "was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban," and that, "after three years, bee populations had not recovered and bees were still dying," to the conclusion that "Voxper was not in fact the cause of the bees' death."

After all, this choice indicates that the fact that the ban was in force could indeed mean that Voxper was not the cause of the bees' death since the effects of Voxper are unlikely to have persisted.

If we negate this choice, we get "the effects of Voxper are LIKELY to have persisted," which destroys the argument by showing that Voxper could still have caused the bees' death even though it "was no longer in use."

Keep.

D. The government ban on Voxper was in force only in areas containing large concentrations of bees.

Notice that the passage says that Voxper "was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban."

So, regardless of what this choice says, Voxper was not used anywhere in Zaronia.

Thus, this choice has no effect on the relevant characteristics of the scenario the argument is about.

Eliminate.

E. Honey and wax production was essentially unchanged in areas where Voxper was not applied.

This choice weakens the argument.

After all, if honey and wax production was essentially unchanged in areas where Voxper was not applied, then we have reason to believe that Voxper was the cause of the bees' death. After all, bees make honey and wax. So, if honey and wax production was essentially unchanged in areas where Voxper was not applied, then it appears that bees were not dying where Voxper was not applied.

Thus, it appears that, where the possible cause, Voxper, was not present, the effect, bees dying, was also not present, information the tends to confirm that Voxper was indeed the cause of the bees' death.

Information that weakens the argument cannot be an assumption on which the argument depends.

Eliminate.

The correct answer is (C).

­A: this has no effect on the conclusion. even if honeybees hadn't lived in the affected areas of zaronia for many years before voxper was applied, it wouldn't matter-- we only care whether or not voxper was the cause of death.

B: The conclusion is about the cause of death of honeybees, not any other insects.

C: If the environmental effects HAVE persisted, then perhaps Voxper WAS the cause of the death of the honeybees (Voxper's environmental effects, anyhow).

D: We don't have to assume this for our argument to still work. If we negated this statement such that the gvmt ban ecompassed other areas, its still possible that Voxper is not the cause of death like the conclusion says. The argument doesn't break apart, so this choice can be eliminated.

E: The passage doesn't give us ANY information about honey and wax production, so its unclear how it might relate to the conclusion.