One good clue as to which geographical regions an ancient relic was mo

Question

One good clue as to which geographical regions an ancient relic was moved through in the past involves the analysis of pollen that clings to the surface of the relic. A relic is linked to a geographical area by the identification of pollen from plants that are known to have been unique to that area.

Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the reliability of the method described above?

(A) Pollens are often transported from one region to another by wind or human movement.

(B) There are several less complicated methods of determining the history of the movement of an object than the analysis and identification of pollen.

(C) Many types of pollen were common to several geographical regions in the ancient world.

(D) Data are scarce as to the geographical distribution of the pollens of many ancient plants.

(E) Pollen analysis is a painstaking process that is also expensive to conduct.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (A)

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This stimulus discusses one method used to determine where relics have been: relics are linked to specific areas based on the presence of pollen unique to those specific areas. To cast doubt on the reliability of this method, we should look for ways to show that such pollen may not reliably show where relics have been. Answer choice (A) does exactly that: if pollen moves from region to region, then the pollen attached to a given relic may have traveled long distances from its unique place of origin. Thus we cannot presume that such a relic came from the pollen’s original location.

Answer choice (B) is incorrect, because it fails to cast doubt on the reliability of the method. The fact that the pollen method is more complicated than others is not relevant to the question of its reliability (a complicated method might be quite reliable).

Answer choice (C) is irrelevant because the author specifically discussed only pollens that were unique to particular areas.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect for a related reason—the author specifically discussed only pollens that were known to have come from a specific area.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect for basically the same reason that answer choice (B) is incorrect: a painstaking and expensive test can still be reliable, and the question asks us to find the answer that casts doubt on the reliability of the method.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Hmm. This sounds like some CSI forensic science stuff. I wonder if we can pretend we’re working on a murder case in order to answer the question. What if instead of “ancient relic” we were talking about a murder weapon? What if the prosecutor had said, “We know this gun has been at the defendant’s remote mountain cabin because the gun has traces of pollen from trees that grow  only  around the defendant’s cabin”? What do you think? Guilty?

Please tell me you’re not nodding along with the prosecutor right now, because the prosecutor is completely full of ****. Just because the  trees  don’t move around doesn’t mean the  pollen  doesn’t move around. It’s conceivable that the entire  world  is covered with pollen from a tree that only lives on one particular mountain in Africa. Even if you think that’s far-fetched, it’s certainly not impossible. Doesn’t a tree emit, like, a bazillion pieces of pollen every day? And isn’t that **** essentially weightless? Can’t pollen fly thousands of miles on the wind, float on top of the ocean, be transmitted by insects, birds, and other animals, etcetera etcetera? Are there any allergy sufferers on the jury? Do you think  they  are going to buy the idea that pollen pretty much stays in a fixed geographical area? I don’t think the prosecutor can possibly win here—I think there must be reasonable doubt if pollen is your only evidence.

Back to the question. We’re asked to “cast doubt” on the pollen analysis method, and I’m guessing that we’ve already done a decent job of it. Our “Wait, your evidence is  pollen ?! You’ve got to be **** with me, that **** gets everywhere!” defense is probably a winner here.

A) Boom. We predicted wind, but we forgot about humans. How do we know that the dirty cops didn’t sprinkle pollen on the gun before putting it in the evidence locker? Great answer. This isn’t what we predicted, but it has the same devastating effect as what we predicted.

B) Not a chance. Just because there are better methods of doing something doesn’t mean that a  worse  method doesn’t also work. Example: Jump out of an airplane at 40,000 feet, with a parachute made of bricks, and you will definitely kill yourself. Jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is a worse method for killing yourself because sometimes people survive both the fall and the sharks—and then have to live with their horrifying injuries—but the method does, generally, work.

C) This is irrelevant, because the facts are only about a pollen or pollens that were known to have been unique to a specific area. This answer just doesn’t apply.

D) Irrelevant. Apparently we have enough data to conclude that this pollen or pollens were linked to a certain geographical area. The fact that we wouldn’t be able to do the same analysis for “many types of pollen” doesn’t in any way weaken our logic.

E) Irrelevant. Just because something is expensive and painstaking doesn’t mean it’s not logically sound.

Our answer is A, because it introduces reasonable doubt.

siddhantvarma · Answer

This tells us that the identification is based on pollen from plants and  the plants  are known to be unique to that area, not the  pollen . Am I understanding this correctly? If yes then how does  (A) Pollens are often transported from one region to another by wind or human movement  weaken the argument? Pollens could be transported to other areas but the plants are still unique to the geographical area. We can trace the pollen back to the plant which will reliably give us the geographical area of the relic.

HenryHai · Answer

IMO, "the plants are known to be unique to that area" and it also means "its pollen" should be unique, isn't it

? The reason for (A) standing to weaken the argument because if a specific pollen (even this pollen is not unique) belongs to zone A and it flies to zone B, then, it accidentally sticks with the zone-B relic. Well, when you analyze this zone-B relic with the knowledge of linking geographical area via pollen, you found that this zone-B relic comes from zone A because the zone-A pollen flying to zone B and attach on the surface of zone-B relic. Thus, The zone-B relic should have belonged to zone B, but by such analysis it turns out to belong to zone A. Hope it helps!

One good clue as to which geographical regions an ancient relic was mo

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

One good clue as to which geographical regions an ancient relic was mo

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