Engineer1
Here is how I would do it, although I am still stuck between C and E.
GMATNinja IanStewart KarishmaB MartyMurray GMATGuruNY. Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Some flowering plant species, entirely dependent on bees for pollination, lure their pollinators with abundant nectar and pollen, which are the only source of food for bees. Often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that it can feed from—and thus pollinate—only a single species of plant. Similarly, some plant species have evolved flowers that only a single species of bee can pollinate—an arrangement that places the plant species at great risk of extinction. If careless applications of pesticides destroy the pollinating bee species, the plant species itself can no longer reproduce.
The information above, if true, most strongly supports which one of the following?
(A) The earliest species of flowering plants appeared on Earth contemporaneously with the earliest bee species.
Irrelevant(B) If the sole pollinator of a certain plant species is in no danger of extinction, the plant species it pollinates is also unlikely to become extinct.
The plant species can become extinct in any other way. Cannot be inferred.(C) Some bees are able to gather pollen and nectar from any species of plant.
This is not directly stated in the argument, although can it be an assumption? This sentence mentions "often", not always, "Often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that". So, it is possible that some bees "are" able to gather pollen and nectar of any species of plant. How do I eliminate C? I think E is also not directly stated in the argument. (D) The blossoms of most species of flowering plants attract some species of bees and do not attract others.
Cannot be inferred. Besides, "most" is I guess, extreme? (E) The total destruction of the habitat of some plant species could cause some bee species to become extinct.
The argument does mention this, Often the pollinating species is so highly adapted that it can feed from—and thus pollinate—only a single species of plant.". The could be a cause effect relationship, meaning extinction of the particular pollinator species could lead to extinction of the corresponding plant it pollinates and vice versa. Side question: The "could" in the answer choice makes it a strong choice. Had the "could" been a "will" would that make E incorrect?Your analysis is pretty solid.
For (C), your ideas make sense, except you need to catch a key detail, which is that "any" is extreme.
What the passage says is basically that SOME species of bees are so highly adapted that they can feed from—and thus pollinate—only a single species of plant.
That information does imply that SOME OTHER species can feed from more than one "single species of plant."
However, more than one is not the same as "any," which is what (C) says.
So, (C) goes further than what the passage implies.
Regarding (E), yes, the use of "will" rather than "could" would make (E) incorrect because we don't know what "will" occur. For example, it's possible that, if bees of a certain species of bee have no plants they can feed from, some researchers will come up with an alternative way for the bees of that species to feed so that even though the plants they feed from are gone, the species does not go extinct.
So, what the passage says indicates that the total destruction of the habitat of some plant species COULD cause some bee species to become extinct, but it may not.