umeshpatil wrote:
Premises:
1. 2 century ago, TP separated from mainland to form 2 regions- 1)mainland 2)Island
2. Island is drier than peninsula
3. Height of flower is Island 40 cm shorter than that in Mainland
Conclusion:
Current average height of Tufe’sTurfil sunflowers is undoubtedly at least partially attributable to changes in Tufe’s environmental conditions.
Questions 1:
Option C says, Mainland sunflowers didn't grew taller due to environmental changes. This make me infer that sunflowers in island grew shorter.
This inference doesn't help to explain why this happened? What is the root cause of 40 cm shortness in island flowers.
I tend to seek the cause behind shortness of Island sunflowers and option D gave relief. Option (C) doesn't add any more information. It just says, Mainland flower didn't grew taller.
When I am asked to find WHY B is shorter than A, Answer Choice says, A is not taller.
Expert insight will help.
Question 2:
I didn't encounter similar question before. Do we have any other
OG question like this ?
Dear Umesh,
Thank you for your query.
After going through your analyses of choices C and D, I feel that you are not asking yourself the right questions in the pre-thinking phase.
Accordingly, let's see where you may be faltering in applying the process.
Right now we are given three things, as you have rightly pointed.
1. Separation of the peninsula from the mainland
2. Difference in the environmental conditions between the peninsula and the island
3. Difference in the height of the sunflowers found on the island and those found on the mainland
On the basis of the above three facts, the author concludes that the difference in the environmental conditions between the peninsula and the island is responsible at least to some extent for the current (shorter) average height of the sunflowers found on the island. Now, in the pre-thinking phase for assumptions, what do we focus on? We try to think of scenarios in which the conclusion may not hold, right? Accordingly, what if someone told you that the difference in the height is not because the island sunflowers are shorter than before but because the mainland sunflowers are taller than before because of the changes in the environmental conditions on the mainland? Would the author's conclusion still be valid? Would the author still be able to blame the difference in the environmental conditions between the peninsula and the island as the cause for the difference in the average height of the sunflowers found at the two different places? The answer is NO! Choice C rules out this possibility by negating a possible counter to the link drawn between the difference in the environmental conditions between the peninsula and the island, and the difference in the height of the sunflowers. Try to negate Choice C and see the effect it has on the conclusion.
As regards choice D, ask yourself whether it is a must be true statement for the conclusion to hold true? Chiranjeev has addressed a similar doubt above. Please do present your analysis in the light of that discussion and we'll take our discussion forward from there.
Regards,
Neeti.