Group 13 Question 63: Researchers have been studying a certain plant..

Official Explanation:

Researchers have been studying a certain plant that has medicinal qualities, but the specimens grown in the lab have not been as effective as those grown in the wild. The number of those grown in the wild, however, is limited because of small rodents that eat the plant, and so netting has been arranged to cover the area in which the plants grow, though the netting also has kept helpful pollinators such as insects away from the plant. Therefore, the netting will be particularly helpful _________.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument above?

(A) in locations in which the pollinators are already within the area set off by the netting.
(B) to researchers who are studying the mechanics of pollination on the plant being studied.
(C) in determining why it is that the plant is beneficial to the rodents that eat it.
(D) in analyzing the relationship between pollination and the plant’s medicinal qualities.
(E) in discovering the exact reasons for the ineffectiveness of the plants grown in the lab.

Question Type: Complete the Passage
Boil It Down: This specific plant grows better in the wild than in the lab. However, rodents eat this plant in the wild, limiting supply. To combat the rodents, netting now covers the area. The netting, while keeping rodents away, also harms the plants by keeping helpful pollinators away. Therefore, the netting will be particularly helpful where: ___________
Goal: Decide which option most logically explains what conditions need to exist for the netting to help the plants grow effectively.

Analysis:
Two things are very important for logically completing an argument.

First, don’t boil the prompt down too much. As many noticed, unlike most other questions, my ‘boil it down’ is very long. In fact, it’s almost as long as the prompt itself! This is totally okay for these types of questions. What I did was take that huge, run-on sentence in the middle and broke it down into three, much shorter and more digestible sentences. It’s fine if we leave it where it is so long as it’s helpful. Some students may wish to break it down even more too: Nets are sometimes good because less rats; but also, are sometimes bad because less helpful pollinators. Regardless, as long as you get the same takeaway it does not matter if you want to leave it longer or break it down.

Second, predictions are incredibly important for questions like this. You need to make a prediction before you look at the answer choices, because it will help you immediately spot possible right answers and throw away bad ones quickly. A large difficulty of this test for students is not necessarily in the difficulty of the questions, but in the difficulty of answering hard questions with little time. Many students don’t believe until they start themselves but making predictions for questions saves you time in the long run. It is the most important step in answering a logical reasoning question.

To make my prediction, I went back to that long run on sentence, and here’s what I took out of it: the netting can be good because it gets rid of rodents who eat the plant; but it can also be bad because it stops helpful insects from pollinating the plant. This is an argument structure we’ve all heard before at some point. This specific thing can sometimes be helpful, or it can be harmful. Being really tall is helpful because you can reach things on high shelves; but it also sucks to be tall on planes because you have no room. Here, we want to fill in the blank of when netting will be the most helpful. To do this, we highlight the good portion. Getting rid of rats. While undermining the bad portion, losing out of pollinators. My prediction is an answer that says “the netting will be particularly helpful in areas with a ton of rats, and farmers can use artificial pollinators to compensate for the lack of pollinators getting through the nets.”

My prediction follows a simple structure, based on my understanding of the prompt. It strengthens the positive: less rats; while also weakening the drawback: less pollinators. The correct answer choice will do one or the other, or better yet it will do both. With this now in mind, we answer the questions.

(A) in locations in which the pollinators are already within the area set off by the netting.
This is the correct answer choice. It does exactly what we wanted it to. It shows us why the drawback does not matter. If the pollinators are already within the area set off by the net, it won’t keep them away from the plants. So now the netting keeps away the rats, and pollination is not affected. This is a win-win for us.

(B) to researchers who are studying the mechanics of pollination on the plant being studied.
Why would netting, a process that reduces the amount of plant pollination, be helpful to researchers studying the mechanics of pollination? Our whole prompt was about the pros and cons of netting these plants in the wild. This plant has medicinal qualities, but it’s hard to grow in the lab. Therefore, we grow it in the wild, but need to know if we should put netting over the plants or not.

(C) in determining why it is that the plant is beneficial to the rodents that eat it.
I can see why this answer is tempting, but this is why we made predictions. The prompt is focused on the pros and cons of netting in order to grow more plants in the wild. This answer does not strengthen the benefit of netting, nor does it weaken the drawback of netting.

(D) in analyzing the relationship between pollination and the plant’s medicinal qualities.
I understand why this is a tempting answer. We know that nets reduce pollination sometimes, so netting could help scientists looking to study the relationship. However, we are answering the question of which answer most logically completes the argument. This does not, because it is out of left field compared to the prompt. Again, look at the prompt’s focus. This plant is good for medicine, but we can’t grow it in the lab. We can grow it in the wild, but we need to net the area which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Does anything in the prompt seem to care about how pollination affects the plant’s medicinal qualities? No. We care about growing more plants in the wild, and how netting affects that.

(E) in discovering the exact reasons for the ineffectiveness of the plants grown in the lab.
Does this strengthen the positive of reducing the number of rats? Does it weaken the drawback of less pollinators? No, it does not. The prompt does not even seem to care that the plant can’t be grown in the lab effectively. That whole statement is just background information as to why we have to grow it in the wild. We need to take the focus of the prompt into account, and this answer choice does not go to the focus of the prompt: the pros and cons of netting on the quantity of plants grown.

Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.