While it is true that bee's vision is well suited to the task of ident

Hi everyone,
The stimulus is saying that flowers adapted to bees as the stimulus says that bees do not have a reason to adapt their vision in response to flowers. Answer choice A is correct because as many insects have vision very similar to bees and this provides evidence that supports the stimulus in that flowers developed in response to bees (and/or insects). The fact that they use "other insects" in this answer choice doesn't matter as it still supports the stimulus. Answer choice C is incorrect because it says the number of different species of flowers is greater than the different species of bees, while this may be true, the number of species is not discussed in the stimulus, nor does it explain who adapted to who like the chicken or the egg? Answer choice B is irrelevant as it is saying that flowers didnt adapt to bees and it actually weakens the stimulus.

A is correct: It states a needed assumption that flowers don't develop color in response to other insects/reasons as opposed to bees.

The passage says that flowers developed color in response to bees' vision. Why? Possibly because bees' vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers by their colors. Really? Other insects that are well suited as well would negate this. Maybe the flowers developed color in response to something besides a bee. Maybe it was another insect that relies on a flower's color. "A" supports the passage because it eliminates the fact that the flowers would develop color in response to something other than bees, which would destroy the argument.

This is a cause and effect argument that bees' vision caused the flowers to develop color. The effect is the flowers developing color. How do you attack or support cause and effect? Show that something else caused the effect is one way.

B is wrong: Some flowers rely on insects other bees. It weakens the argument because flowers that rely on other insects may develop color because of other insects. Which would negate the argument that flowers developed color in response to bees.

C is wrong: Huh? Doesn't matter.

D is wrong: Many nonflowering plants rely on bees. We're trying to prove that flowers developed color in response to bees' vision and you want to talk about nonflowering plants relying on bees? How does this help the argument that flowers developed color in response to bees' vision? It doesn't. Who cares about the nonflowering plants? We're talking about bees' vision and nothing else causing color in flowers.

E is wrong: This may weaken the argument. How? It states that bees rely on flowers which would mean that the bees would have to adapt their eye sight to the flowers which is the opposite of the argument.

I'm going with A here too, great explanations from thinkblue and JC. icandy also had a good breakdown of the premises and conclusion.

I just want to add to the discussion, "out of scope" is NOT the same as "surprising." Often on strengthen/weaken questions, the answer WILL in fact be a surprise. Out of scope means that the answer changes the focus of the argument. For example, if I offered answer choice (f)

Cousins of bees, wasps' vision evolved by way of a retinal mutation that gave them color-detecting cones similar to those found in humans.

That would be out of scope, because I have no way to link wasp-vision to bee-vision (I tried really hard!). Notice how obviously out of scope this is. Truly out of scope answers are actually pretty rare on the GMAT.

I'm preparing for the LSAT. This question is from an LSAT although it might have been used on a GMAT. Out of scope answer choices can be very subtle on the LSAT.

Wild cheetahs live in the African grasslands. Previous estimates of the size that the wild cheetah population must be in order for these animals to survive a natural disaster in the African grasslands region were too small, and the current population barely meets the previous estimates. At present, however, there is not enough African grassland to support a wild cheetah population larger than the current population.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following conclusions?
(A) Previous estimates of the size of the existing wild cheetah population were inaccurate. Changes scope slightly by discussing the estimates of the size of the existing wild cheetah population instead of the estimates on what they must be in order to survive. Clearly the estimates were inaccurate because they mentioned that they were too small; however, in this answer choice they mention that the estimates of the current population were inaccurate. Slight scope shift.
(B) The cheetah’s natural habitat is decreasing in size at a faster rate than is the size of the wild cheetah population.
(C) The principal threat to the endangered wild cheetah population is neither pollution nor hunting, but a natural disaster.
(D) In the short term, the wild cheetah population will be incapable of surviving a natural disaster in the African grasslands.
(E) In regions where land is suitable for cheetah habitation, more natural disasters are expected to occur during the next decade than occurred during the past decade.

I would still go with C .
A is wrong because ,it only states that other insects that have vision very similar to that of bees do not depend on perceiving an object's color.
Whats wrong if they depend on perceiving an objects colour?? The other insects need not exhibit the same behavior as that of the bees.Hence they might rely on the colour of the flower but do not have the option to modify the color of the flower .

If there are many other insects that have the same type of vision as bees, then those insects' vision probably developed for the same reason as bees.

If perceiving colors is not important to those insects, then there must have been some other evolutionary reason for them to develop that way (a coincidence is unlikely because there are many different insects with this same type of vision).

If those insects' vision did not develop in response to object color, then we can conclude that bees' vision did not develop in response to object color either. A flower is an object.

Because bees' vision is well-suited to identifying flowers (CORRELATION), and bees' vision didn't develop in response to flower colors (INCORRECT CAUSATION MODEL), then flower colors must have developed in response to bees' vision (CORRECT CAUSATION MODEL).

This question looks like an strengthen rather than inference.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.