Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
13 Jun 2025, 09:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
To critically evaluate the researchers' reasoning, let's break down the argument step-by-step:
Argument Breakdown:
- Observation: Larkspur produced more seeds in control plots (where dandelions were present) than in dandelion-free plots.
- Conclusion: Dandelions facilitate pollination of larkspur by attracting more pollinators (e.g., bumblebees), leading to increased seed production.
What undermines this?
We need to find an option that weakens the causal link between dandelion presence and higher larkspur seed production via pollinator attraction. Specifically, we want something that suggests the observed increase in seed production might be due to something else—not improved pollination thanks to dandelions.
Let's evaluate each option:
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots.
➡️ This suggests pollinators are distracted by dandelions, possibly reducing visits to larkspur. This weakens the conclusion, because it implies dandelions might actually hurt larkspur pollination.
BUT WAIT: The data shows more seeds in the presence of dandelions. If pollinators were being diverted, we'd expect fewer seeds. So, this contradicts the observed outcome, making this less of a threat to the reasoning—unless we also posit another mechanism (like spillover effects), which this option doesn't suggest.
Verdict: Weakens slightly, but not the most direct flaw.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
🚫 Biologically implausible. Cross-species pollination (e.g., from dandelion to larkspur) does not typically result in seed production. And even if it did, it would not explain why removing dandelions causes fewer larkspur seeds. This doesn't logically weaken or support the argument.
Verdict: Irrelevant or biologically invalid.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species.
➡️ This is about long-term ecological competition, not short-term seed production. Even if dandelions are harmful in the long run, the study is focused on pollination effects. This doesn't challenge the logic of the researchers' specific causal link.
Verdict: Out of scope.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species' fitness than seed production.
➡️ This challenges the metric used, not the reasoning. The researchers measured seed production, and their claim is about how pollination affects that. Even if fitness is better measured another way, it doesn't undermine their causal conclusion about pollination.
Verdict: Does not weaken the argument's logic.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production.
💥 This is key. If removing dandelions caused soil disturbance, which reduced larkspur blooming, then the lower seed production in dandelion-free plots could be due to this disturbance, not reduced pollinator visits.
✅ This directly challenges the conclusion that dandelions improve pollination. Instead, the difference in seed production could be an artifact of experimental manipulation, not ecological interaction.
Verdict: Strongly undermines the researchers' reasoning.
Correct Answer: (E)
It provides an alternative explanation for the observed data—soil disturbance, not pollinator facilitation, led to lower seed production in dandelion-free plots.
Argument Breakdown:
- Observation: Larkspur produced more seeds in control plots (where dandelions were present) than in dandelion-free plots.
- Conclusion: Dandelions facilitate pollination of larkspur by attracting more pollinators (e.g., bumblebees), leading to increased seed production.
What undermines this?
We need to find an option that weakens the causal link between dandelion presence and higher larkspur seed production via pollinator attraction. Specifically, we want something that suggests the observed increase in seed production might be due to something else—not improved pollination thanks to dandelions.
Let's evaluate each option:
(A) Bumblebees preferentially visit dandelions over larkspurs in mixed plots.
➡️ This suggests pollinators are distracted by dandelions, possibly reducing visits to larkspur. This weakens the conclusion, because it implies dandelions might actually hurt larkspur pollination.
BUT WAIT: The data shows more seeds in the presence of dandelions. If pollinators were being diverted, we'd expect fewer seeds. So, this contradicts the observed outcome, making this less of a threat to the reasoning—unless we also posit another mechanism (like spillover effects), which this option doesn't suggest.
Verdict: Weakens slightly, but not the most direct flaw.
(B) In mixed plots, pollinators can transfer pollen from one species to another to augment seed production.
🚫 Biologically implausible. Cross-species pollination (e.g., from dandelion to larkspur) does not typically result in seed production. And even if it did, it would not explain why removing dandelions causes fewer larkspur seeds. This doesn't logically weaken or support the argument.
Verdict: Irrelevant or biologically invalid.
(C) If left unchecked, nonnative species like dandelions quickly crowd out native species.
➡️ This is about long-term ecological competition, not short-term seed production. Even if dandelions are harmful in the long run, the study is focused on pollination effects. This doesn't challenge the logic of the researchers' specific causal link.
Verdict: Out of scope.
(D) Seed germination is a more reliable measure of a species' fitness than seed production.
➡️ This challenges the metric used, not the reasoning. The researchers measured seed production, and their claim is about how pollination affects that. Even if fitness is better measured another way, it doesn't undermine their causal conclusion about pollination.
Verdict: Does not weaken the argument's logic.
(E) Soil disturbances can result in fewer blooms, and hence lower seed production.
💥 This is key. If removing dandelions caused soil disturbance, which reduced larkspur blooming, then the lower seed production in dandelion-free plots could be due to this disturbance, not reduced pollinator visits.
✅ This directly challenges the conclusion that dandelions improve pollination. Instead, the difference in seed production could be an artifact of experimental manipulation, not ecological interaction.
Verdict: Strongly undermines the researchers' reasoning.
Correct Answer: (E)
It provides an alternative explanation for the observed data—soil disturbance, not pollinator facilitation, led to lower seed production in dandelion-free plots.
Moderators:
188 posts
