raoshahb
How to eliminate A and C ? I am not able to find the reasons for elimination. Thanks
All right! This is a very hard CR question. But this simply tests causality then why it is still so hard? This is because the question stem is not asking you to Strengthen or Weaken, it is indeed asking you to do both i.e. EVALUATE the argument. (Persional opinion on toughness of the question).
Quote:
A certain cultivated herb is one of a group of closely related plants that thrive in soil with high concentrations of metals that are toxic to most other plants. Agronomists studying the growth of this herb have discovered that it produces large amounts of histidine, an amino acid that, in test-tube solutions, renders these metals chemically inert. Hence, the herb’s high histidine production must be the key feature that allows it to grow in metal-rich soils.
Pattern: If two things found happening together then one causes the other.
Mapping of the Pattern with the argument:Herb is growing in the soil with high concentration of metals
AND herb is producing large amount of histidine. (these two things are happening together)
Histidine is causing herb to grow in such soil
What would you do to strengthen such causality?You would bring a fact to show that the causality is indeed correct. You would say there is no other cause or say the reverse of the causality is not true.
What would you do to Weaken such causality? – Just the opposite of what you would do to strengthen (as stated above)
(A) Whether the herb can thrive in soil that does not have high concentrations of the toxic metalsWe are not talking about other kind of soil here. We are focusing on the production of histidine and growth in METAL RICH SOIL. Because if you find out whether heb thrive in non-metal-rich soil then it does not tell you about the causality.
All right suppose herb does grow in the non-metal-rich soil. Then herb MAY/MAY NOT be able to grow in METAL-RICH soil and if it may indeed grow then you do not know the casue/factor that helps it to grow in metal-rich soil as well.
Think of the case – METAL RICHNESS OF SOIL does nothing to the growth of herb.
(B) Whether others of the closely related group of plants also produce histidine in large quantitiesWhat this choice actually says is – If all other herbs THAT ARE CLOSELY RELATED to this herb, also produce histidine then this could indeed be the THING/THE CAUSE/THE FACTOR for them to grow.
Isn’t it true that if something is happening to everyone of a certain kind then there could be some cause. If I tell you that in a city all children are falling sick since last week then you would want to believe if I say that a virus or bad water from the city supply was the cause?
So if you knew THAT what happens to this herb happens to all other herbs that are closely related to it then Evaluation is done.
(C) Whether the herb’s high level of histidine production is associated with an unusually low level of production of some other amino acidAgain, this does not tell anything about the said causality. This is bringing up another causality to test i.e. whether histidine production itself is caused/associated with different type of amino acid. We need to closely keep our focus on what are the major things argument discusses.
(D) Whether growing the herb in soil with high concentrations of the metals will, over time, reduce their concentrations in the soilSoil is rich of METAL with high concentration. How the reduction in this concentration is related to the given causality? This is certainly not talking about the factors that are involved. Histidine make the herb grow in metal rich soil. Whether less metal reich soil would do or not is not the focus of discussion.
(E) Whether the concentration of histidine in the growing herb declines as the plant approaches maturityIt is told that LARGE AMOUNT of histidine is produced. Now if that is the case why are we bothering to evaluate whether concentration of histidine declines or not.