Chef wrote:
akshata19 wrote:
yes C is a tempting trap
I go with D as it directly shows the flaw in the conclusion assumed by splitting the compounds and experimenting whereas C deals with the assumption part of the theory 'while another attributes this ability to various chemical compounds they produce'
Can you explain what the option C means?
Thanks!
Quote:
(C) treats a condition sufficient for sea butterflies’ ability to avoid predators as a condition required for this ability
treats a condition sufficient
for sea butterflies’ ability to avoid predators as a condition required
for this abilityTreats condition sufficient as condition required
Example1: P-->Q; P maybe sufficient to result in Q .but P may not be a required condition
Example2: Red+ Blue --> Purple; Red is a required color to make a purple but red is not sufficient
Ability to various chemical compounds maybe be sufficient but it may not be required
ability to various colors or many other factors ---> avoid predators
ability of various color is just one of many factors that can avoid predator.
But for this argument, flaw is that ecologist thinks if something is applicable for A, it may also be applicable for B. Hence D is correct; not C.