BThe stimulus for this Inference question, like many others, presents not an argument but a set of facts. This one lists three
conditions or applications that can affect a poppy flower.
(1) When a poppy is pollinated, its petals wilt in a day or two because of some substance released into the flower.
(2) If a poppy’s not pollinated, then as long as it’s fed, its petals won’t wilt for a week or so.
(3) If the unpollinated flower is cut from the plant, the same substance is released as in pollination. We can infer that the cut
flower’s petals will therefore wilt because it gets that substance . . . but if you didn’t see this right away, all you needed to do
was attack the choices in search of the one that must be true.
(A) The behaviour of insects, and what influences it, are outside the scope of this discussion of what happens to the plants
after (or instead of) pollination.
(B) is what we want. A cut flower, according to the last sentence, will have its mystery substance released, and according to
sentence 2, its petals will therefore wilt in a matter of days. (Incidentally, notice that (B)’s reference to nutrients is a red
herring since nourishment is only mentioned in terms of unpollinated flowers. Nourishment notwithstanding, cut flower petals
will wilt fast. Period.)
(C) Since this passage is wholly about poppy plants, there’s no conceivable way to use it to make an inference about “all
plants.” This choice should have given you a little pause.
(D) , (E) Each of these goes far beyond the stimulus’ scope to focus on issues that might be relevant to the poppy but not to
the author’s set of facts. Each choice is too technical and unsupported by hard evidence to qualify as an inference here— we
simply don’t know enough about the biological mechanisms involved to affirm either one.