Gardener: The design of Japanese gardens should display harmony with

Let's start with the conclusion: "rocks chosen for placement in [Japanese] gardens should vary widely in appearance." How does the author arrive at that conclusion?

1) The design of Japanese gardens should display harmony with nature.
2) Rocks found in nature vary widely in appearance.
3) Hence, rocks chosen for placement in [Japanese] gardens should vary widely in appearance.

We need to find an answer choice that MUST be true in order for the author's logic to hold:


(A) tells us that the rocks selected for a garden should reflect every key value of design. Does that have to be true in order for the argument to hold?

The passage focuses on only one key value: "harmony with nature." There could be many more values that are key in designing Japanese gardens (minimalism? a certain color palette? accessible walking paths?). The conclusion does not require that the selected rocks reflect all of these other potential values -- as long as they reflect harmony with nature, the conditions of the passage have been satisfied.

Because (A) does not HAVE to be true, it is not the correct answer.


From the information in the passage, we know that if you want the rocks in your Japanese garden to look similar to those found in nature, you should choose rocks that vary widely in appearance. But does having rocks that look similar to those found in nature help your Japanese garden display harmony with nature? Without (B), choosing rocks that vary widely in appearance might NOT help your garden display harmony with nature--in other words, choosing rocks that are like rocks in nature might NOT improve your garden's harmony with nature.

But if we assume (B), then imitating nature (i.e. choosing rocks that vary in appearance, just as the rocks in nature vary in appearance) DOES help to achieve harmony with nature in Japanese gardens. (B) fills the gap in the logic, so let's hang on to this one.


From the passage, we know that the selection of rocks should reflect harmony with nature. But is that the only criterion for selecting rocks for your garden? Maybe there are other requirements, such as size, color, magnetism, etc. Those other requirements would not interfere with the "expression of harmony with nature" requirement. So expression of harmony with nature does NOT have to be the only criterion for selecting rocks; instead, it can be one of several criteria.

(C) does not have to be true, so let's eliminate this one.


Consider a Japanese garden with a bunch of rocks that do NOT vary much in appearance. Well, those monotonous rocks are certainly natural objects. But, according to the passage, being natural objects is not enough. From that perspective, the logic in the passage does not rely on choice (D).

Also, a Japanese garden is a man-made and, thus, unnatural thing. If (D) is true, then it might be impossible for a Japanese garden--an unnatural thing--to express harmony with nature! So, if anything, we need to assume that (D) is NOT true in order for the argument to hold!

(D) is not the best choice.


All we know from the passage is that rocks found in nature vary widely in appearance. Thus, we want the rocks in our gardens to vary widely in appearance as well.

But does that mean that EACH component of a genuine Japanese garden is varied? Maybe, maybe not... For example, perhaps your garden contains some component that actually does NOT vary much in nature. If that's the case, then there would be no reason to vary that component in your garden.

The argument is only concerned with the variety of the rocks in Japanese gardens. (E) might be true, but it is not a required assumption.

(B) is the best choice!