Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health

Question

Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health of crops that depend on pollination. Bees, the most common pollinators, visit flowers far from woodlands less often than they visit flowers close to woodlands.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits from pollinators increases.

(B) Many bees live in habitats other than woodlands.

(C) Woodlands are not the natural habitat of all pollinators.

(D) Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close to their habitats.

(E) Many crops that are not near woodlands depend on pollination.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The first sentence of this argument is the conclusion. I know this because the second sentence (bees visit plants close to home more often than they visit plants far from home) supports the idea of the first sentence (being near woodlands, where bees live, is good for crops that need pollination). The logic wouldn’t make sense the other way around, right? If I said to you, “Being near woodlands is good for crops,  therefore , bees do more pollinating close to home than they do far from home,” my logic wouldn’t make very much sense.

So we’re asked to strengthen the conclusion, “Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health of crops.” I’m not sure we can predict an answer in advance, unfortunately.

A) This seems awful obvious, but that’s never a bad thing on the LSAT. The evidence was about visits, but the conclusion was about  pollination . This answer choice links the concepts of visits to pollination. That’s something we learn in kindergarten, but unless it’s explicitly stated in the argument, we can’t assume that it’s true. So this answer does strengthen the argument somewhat. We can happily choose A if the rest of the answers are garbage.

B) So what if bees live in parks, rooftop beehives, zoos, abandoned cars, or whatever? This doesn’t change the logic of the argument one way or the other.

C) Other pollinators are not relevant. Only bees are relevant. No way.

D) If this is true, I suppose it would be somewhat of a weakener. Not a very good one, though, because what “some” individual pollinators do doesn’t change the fact that other pollinators tend to act differently. Anyway, we were looking for a strengthener so this can’t be it.

E) It’s not relevant what crops “depend” on pollination. The only thing that’s relevant is this: Is living next to a bee habitat good for crops? We were asked to argue for “yes” as an answer to that question, since we were supposed to be strengthening the argument.

Only one answer strengthened the argument’s conclusion. That answer is A.

TAC470 · Answer

(A) The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits from pollinators increases.
This looks perfect coz if some corps are dependent on pollination and bees visit these corps most often thus chances of pollination will increase and this help the corps.

(B) Many bees live in habitats other than woodlands.

(C) Woodlands are not the natural habitat of all pollinators.

(D) Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close to their habitats.

(E) Many crops that are not near woodlands depend on pollination.

i pick A.

sivatx2 · Answer

Bees visit flowers far from woodlands less often than they visit flowers close to woodlands. If we know why it is so, then we know that will be our strengthener answer choice.

(A) The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits from pollinators increases. 
 This answers the connection between pollination, the visits made by the bee/pollinator. So if the bees habitat is close to Woodlands then the pollination occurs more often due to their frequent visits. This strengthens the argument. Keep

(B) Many bees live in habitats other than woodlands. 
 This actually weakens based on option A analysis. Eliminate

(C) Woodlands are not the natural habitat of all pollinators. 
 This also weakens based on Option A analysis. If the pollinators are not living in Woodlands naturally their visit will reduce and hence there will be reduction in the number of pollination that can happen. Eliminate

(D) Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close to their habitats. 
 This also weakens if the pollinators are traveling far, they may be ignoring Woodland and pollination will probably decrease. Eliminate

(E) Many crops that are not near woodlands depend on pollination. 
 Areas other than Woodlands is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate

So A is the best answer choice.

unraveled · Answer

What 'some pollinators', 'many pollinators' and 'all' stand for.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health

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

Being near woodlands, the natural habitat of bees, promotes the health

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