The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which

Question

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which, in turn, usually results in abundant fruits and vegetables. Establishing a beehive or two near one's garden ensures the presence of bees. Keeping bees is economical, however, only if the gardener has a use for homegrown honey. Thus, gardeners who have no use for homegrown honey will tend not to have beehives, so their gardens will fail to have excellent pollination.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument?

(A) The argument fails to consider the possibility that obtaining homegrown honey is only one of several advantages of beehives.

(B) The argument confuses what is necessary for pollination to take place with what would guarantee that it takes place.

(C) The argument confuses what is necessary for an abundance of fruits and vegetables with what is usually conducive to it.

(D) The argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition that would ensure their presence.

(E) The argument bases a claim that there is a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination on a mere association between them.

Saasingh · Answer

I think its D.

The flaw is that the author is assuming that bees need to be purchased or something and that these bees cannot exists naturally in the garden. So just because the Gardner didn't buy the bees, doesn't imply that he wont have excellent pollination.

(D) The argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition that would ensure their presence.

Hatakekakashi · Answer

Premise says that Bees are needed for pollination and there has to be a need for home grown honey else there wouldn't be pollination

but it doesn't take into consideration the fact that even with the absence of bee hives bees can still pollinate

This comes across in D

RiyaJain69 · Answer

I narrowed down to A and D and went with A. Even after reading the reasoning for D, I think A is a better option. D says bees might be present even without beehive. No doubt. But between a garden without a beehive and a garden with a beehive, which one will have better pollination? Sure, a garden without bees will still have bees visiting but a garden with a beehive will naturally have considerably more bee presence. Since the conclusion is about "excellent pollination" and not just pollination, D is a poor weakener.

Now, the argument says keeping bees is economical only if a gardener needs honey. Option A weakens that by highlighting that honey is not the only (economic) advantage of a beehive. I have a garden and I have witnessed excellent pollination during Covid lockdown (when people weren't allowed outdoors and hence the air was the cleanest, conducive to pollination). Our mango tree and mango trees all around had an unprecedented bumper harvest, manifold of what we usually get. Even if one doesn't need honey, excellent harvest itself can yield rich economic dividends. Hence, option A is the best weakener of the five answer choices.

Why is A incorrect then? I know we are not supposed to bring outside knowledge but this knowledge about bees and pollination is not a niche field at all. (Long message because I was getting all CR questions correct, this is the one that's broken the streak.)

thelastskybender · Answer

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which, in turn, usually results in abundant fruits and vegetables. Establishing a beehive or two near one's garden ensures the presence of bees. Keeping bees is economical, however, only if the gardener has a use for homegrown honey. Thus, gardeners who have no use for homegrown honey will tend not to have beehives, so their gardens will fail to have excellent pollination.

Let's work backward!

Reasoning is flawed means  not fail excellent pollination  might be true] => Excellent pollination=> Bees are necessary
Now Beehive or keeping bee is sufficient for the Bees, but it might not be the only way. There could be other way to have bees apart from establishing beehive.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Hi Riya, it took me some time to choose between A and D but finally I went with D. My reason is that we have to accept the premise as true - "Keeping bees is economical  only if  the gardener has a use for honey." It is given like a fact!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

Flaw:  From  “no beehive,”  the argument concludes  “no bees.”  But bees can come from other places, maybe a neighbor’s hive, maybe wild bees. Not only from your own beehive. The argument assumes that because a beehive ensures bees, no beehive means no bees at all. This ignores the possibility that bees can be present without a beehive in your garden.

(A)  This is irrelevant, the argument is not about other advantages of beehives.

(B)  The argument does not confuse necessity with guarantee for pollination; it confuses  “beehive ensures bees”  with  “no beehive means no bees.”

(C)  The argument does not mix up necessity and conduciveness for fruit abundance; it’s about bees being present.

(D)  This is correct: bees might be present even without a beehive.

(E)  The argument does claim a causal link, but the flaw is not about confusing association with causation; it’s about assuming bees can’t come from elsewhere.

Answer: D

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The presence of bees is necessary for excellent pollination, which

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards