Q18 - While it is true that bees'

[mlee.cortez]

I seem to understand the main point of the argument but I can't understand the correct answer. Please explain.

Thanks.

[noah]

The argument that we need to strengthen is that flowers adapted for bees and not vice versa.

Let's start by ruling out the incorrect answers:

(B) is tempting. However, if true, this would weaken the argument, since there would be less incentive for flowers to adapt to bees, since there are others on whom flowers can rely.

(C) is also tempting, however it is irrelevant whether there are more types of flowers than bees or vice versa. One might think that because there are more flower types, they have to compete with each other for bee-love and thus adapt, however, here we're adding another assumption to the discussion (more flowers --> more competition --> more incentive to adapt), so this answer does not weaken on it's own.

(D) is tempting. "Maybe", one might think, "the competition for bee-attention is made more intense by these non-flowering plants . . ." However, we're again assuming that more competition leads to more adaptation, and that bees have a limit to the number of plants they can help (there may be enough bee-love for everyone in the garden, no pushing, ladies)

(E) could be interpreted to weaken the argument just as easily as strengthen: if bees rely exclusively on flowers, they would adapt to take advantage of their sugar-momma.

So, we're left with (A). (A) strengthens the argument by supporting an alternate explanation for bee vision: it's not that bees NEED this type of vision, they just happen to have it. (A) strengthens that idea by pointing out that other insects have this type of vision and do not depend on it; therefore, it's within reason that bees also do not depend on it.

Does that clear it up?

[mlee.cortez]

I think I understand it...I'm going to leave it for now and go back to it when I'm more awake. I did get A through process of elimination.

[ocho34]

In choice (A) I was distracted by "insects" . Even though it suggests they have similar vision , Wouldn't it be out of scope because it doen't directly relate to the bees in question?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I generally agree with the thought process. Eliminate the out of scope answers. But we need to be careful that we don't just go throwing out any answer choice that has a term that wasn't mentioned in the stimulus.

Instead we need to be careful and think about whether the term applies to something discussed in the stimulus. We know the argument is talking about bees. Answer choice (A) brings up insects. However, these insects have vision very similar to that of the bees. If they have the same kind of vision, at least in that respect they're comparable.

So, I wouldn't say answer choice (A) is out of scope. I would just say it brings up the subject in an obscure way.

[danielalfino]

I have a problem with answer choice A, not because it is out of scope but because it seems irrelevant. Just because other insects which have similar structures don't use the same process shouldn't really have any bearing on the "chicken and egg" relationship between bees and flowers. Just because two insects are similar but function in two separate ways doesn't mean tell me anything about the evolutionary history of the insect, does it?

I didn't like any of these answer choices. Originally, I was hoping that one would answer would provide historical evidence through carbon dating or something to prove that the trait in bees came before the trait in flowers because that would actually prove something. This would be make the assumption true because the contrapositive would have to be false. Answer choice A in my mind just seems to provide irrelevant information about other insects which don't affect the relationship between bees and flowers.

If you could help me understand why I am wrong, that might be helpful. Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We're trying to support the conclusion that "it is probable that flowers developed in response to the type of vision that bees have, rather than bees' vision developing in response to flower color."

Let me walk through the answers

(A) seems a bit out of scope when it discusses insects other than bees. At first glance it feels wrong, so I'll eliminate it, even though it's the correct answer. Just follow me for a second.
(B) also discusses insects other than bees. Eliminate it.
(C) is totally irrelevant. Who cares about the number of species? That doesn't pertain to whether it's the bees that are dependent on the flowers or vice versa.
(D) seems to be out of scope when it discusses nonflowering plants.
(E) undermines the conclusion that it's the flowers that are dependent.

So, we have two clearly wrong answers and three apparently out of scope answers. Let's look at the supposedly out of scope answer more carefully...

Of the three, only answer choice (A) provides any link between the out of scope group and the group discussed.

(A) links the other insects by saying that they have vision similar to bees' vision.
(B) does not link insects other than bees with bees.
(D) does not link nonflowering plants with flowers.

Since answer choice (A) links the two groups, it's the one that provides the most support.

Let me know what you think. If you have a different perspective, I'd be happy to try and see another way of looking at...

[aquyenl]

If the bees' vision developed in response to flower colors, we would expect their vision to be specialized and have few traits in common with the vision of other insects. If that was true, then there really should not be many other insects that share very similar vision as bees, esPecially insects who do not depend on color to survive.

Since this is a strengthen question we do not need an answer that absolutely proves the relationship b/w flowers and bees. Just something that makes it more likely. If other insects had the same kind of vision as bees and color doesn't matter to those insects, it is more likely that flowers developed in response to the bees vision than the other way around.

How could it be possible otherwise for bees which depend on color and other insects that don't depend on color to have the same kind of vision? It's very unlikely that an insect that doesn't need color would develop the same kind vision as a bee whose eyes developed in response to flower color.


Not sure if that helps but thaw how I saw it

[chike_eze]

...

How could it be possible otherwise for bees which depend on color and other insects that don't depend on color to have the same kind of vision? It's very unlikely that an insect that doesn't need color would develop the same kind vision as a bee whose eyes developed in response to flower color.

Not sure if that helps but thaw how I saw it

I follow your general train of thought, but I like to think that we are not required to make too many tangential inferences to arrive at the right answer.

Answer A also seemed out of scope the first time I attempted this question. The only thing I came up with after reviewing it again is that the issue is about "vision" -- the bee's vision (not about bees specifically). Therefore if the main issue is about "vision" of bees, then it is not out of scope to compare the bee's "vision" to many insect's "vision".

Evidence from Prompt:
While it is true that bees' vision... in response to type of vision that bees have... rather than bees' vision.

If we go with this reasoning, then
Bees have vision-1
Vision-2 is very similar to vision-1
Many insects have vision-2 and they do not depend on perceiving an object's color (including flower's color)

Therefore:
This weakens the assertion that the bees "vision" adapted to flower color (why? bee's vision-1 is very similar to vision-2). As a result, this strengthens (though slightly) the assertion that Flowers adapted to bee's vision instead.

[nflamel69]

Could E also be wrong because it mentioned present-day bee? the whole argument is about the causation of development of colors of flowers and bee's vision, the whole present thing seems really out of scope. Also, I feel like its hard to determine it strengthens or weakens, to me, it feels like it's just kind of there...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Could E also be wrong because it mentioned present-day bee? the whole argument is about the causation of development of colors of flowers and bee's vision, the whole present thing seems really out of scope. Also, I feel like its hard to determine it strengthens or weakens, to me, it feels like it's just kind of there...

I see this one as clearly weakening the idea that it's the flowers that developed in response to the bees. If flowers developed in response to the bees, the flowers would be the dependent ones, but this answer choice would make it so that the bees are the dependent ones.

Second, I think it's perfectly fine that they're discussing present-day bees, since the first sentence discusses bees' vision and there they are discussing present-day bees.

Hope that helps!

[MayMay]

can we review why D is wrong?

I thought this was a really attractive answer because if nonflowering plants need bees, then it'd be up to them to take the initiative, if you will, to be more attractive to the bee. I also thought it was safe to assume here that bees wouldn't depend on nonflowering plants.

I also don't agree that this choice is out of scope. the stimulus never limits us to flowering plants.

I understand how A is the better answer, but I can't quite put my finger on why this choice is absolutely wrong.

help please!

[sumukh09]

Hi MayMay

D is irrelevant to the core of the stimulus - nonflowering plants are in fact out of scope as the stimulus specifically refers only to flowers so we can't strengthen the argument by saying something about nonflowering plants.

[monygg85]

I got this wrong because I read the question stem to quickly and thought it was asking for statements most strongly supported by the text above, which threw me for a crazy loop as none were. Because of time constraints (I never re-read the question) I had to guess and move on.

Now that I look back on it, and saw that its a Strengthen question, I think I see the answer to it.

(A) Strengthens it by strengthening the idea that flowers developed in response to the Bees specific vision and most likely not for some other animal similar in whatever respect to the bees. Also if there was an animal with similar vision to the bees vision it doesnt depend on perceiving an objects color.

[cfk]

I am having trouble seeing how answer choice (D) does not link in.

I actually eliminated (A) on this test and had a similar experience to the previous explanation of eliminating all answers.

In answer choice (A) I reasoned - If bees are well suited to the task of identifying flowers by their colors but do not depend on perceiving an objects color why did the flower do this? It seemed to weaken for me the idea that these flowers developed in response to a bee's vision.

Am I interpreting "dependent" wrong? Such that the color made the flowers more "attractive" or something else unstated but bees do not "need" this, just makes the flowers more competitive?

In choosing (D), my reasoning was that many non-flowering plants rely on bees such that they develop flowers (it is probable that the flowers developed in response to the type of vision that bees have). So they develop flowers because they rely on bees.

(Maybe my problem is that I am failing to realize non-flowering plants will not develop flowers? I am having a problem with "flowers developed" - I read it as flowers literally developed...)

Although I found the explanation helpful, I need a stronger reason to rule out (D) in favor of (A) than "linking" in to the argument...

[snoopy]

I am having trouble seeing how answer choice (D) does not link in.

I actually eliminated (A) on this test and had a similar experience to the previous explanation of eliminating all answers.

In answer choice (A) I reasoned - If bees are well suited to the task of identifying flowers by their colors but do not depend on perceiving an objects color why did the flower do this? It seemed to weaken for me the idea that these flowers developed in response to a bee's vision.

Am I interpreting "dependent" wrong? Such that the color made the flowers more "attractive" or something else unstated but bees do not "need" this, just makes the flowers more competitive?

I think you're assuming that the flower developed its colors in respond to the bee's vision. The conclusion says "it's probable that flowers developed in response to the type of vision that bees have." It's not saying flowers developed its colors, just that it developed in response. Maybe the bees' vision can sense light waves reflected off of a flower's color, or maybe the bees' vision relies on scent.

In choosing (D), my reasoning was that many non-flowering plants rely on bees such that they develop flowers (it is probable that the flowers developed in response to the type of vision that bees have). So they develop flowers because they rely on bees.

(Maybe my problem is that I am failing to realize non-flowering plants will not develop flowers? I am having a problem with "flowers developed" - I read it as flowers literally developed...)

Although I found the explanation helpful, I need a stronger reason to rule out (D) in favor of (A) than "linking" in to the argument...

You added your own assumption that non-flowering plants will develop flowers even though it says it's non-flowering. The LSAT tests common sense, and they would argue, "A non-flowering plant does not develop flowers." That's common sense.

Either way, non-flowering plants are not relevant to the argument since we are only discussing flowers (flowering plants, if you want to be technical) and how they develop in response to bees' vision.

[obobob]

Can anyone walk me through this question? I am getting partial understanding about this Q, but I still feel like I am missing how (A) actually helps supporting the conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

This problem is ultimately about evolution / natural selection, so understanding it hinges on having a decent grasp of those topics.

Say, for example, that we discover an ecosystem in which there are nuts that are enclosed in thick-walled shells and birds with unusual beaks that seem well suited to the task of breaking through the thick shell of the nut in order to get the food within.

We could ask ourselves:
did the hard-shelled nut exist first, and then the birds evolved beaks that were better at breaking into them?
or
did the birds with special hammer-beaks exist first, and then a nut evolved a really thick shell so that birds would be more likely to eat them?

In this example, it seems more likely that the nut’s hard shell came first, and the advanced hammer-beak evolved as a necessity of getting at that food supply.

It doesn’t make as much sense to think that the hammer-beak came first, and the nuts evolved a hard shell ... as a necessity of trying to be eaten by the bird? The bird would have presumably still eaten it even if it hard a less hard shell.

In the case of bees’ vision and flower colors, it’s less clear which one would have more likely exerted an evolutionary selection force on the other:
- It’s plausible that flowers had special colors first, and bees’ vision evolved so that they could better identify the flowers they wanted to pollinate.
- But it’s also plausible that bees’ vision came first, and flowers evolved to increase the chance that they would be pollinated by bees.

In the case of the bird and the nut, the bird definitely gets something out of eating the nut, whereas it’s less clear that the nut gets something out of being eaten. Hence, it’s more likely that the interested party (the bird) evolved toward the preexisting constraint (hard shell).

In the case of bees and flowers, the relationship is very symbiotic:
Pollinators like bees need flowers, and flowers need pollinators like bees.

So it could be that flowers were the interested party and evolved colors that would fit to the preexisting constraint (bees’ vision).
Or it could be the other way around, but the author is selling us on the former.

For each answer, you could ask yourself which of these stories, if either, this answer would address:
1. Bees depend on finding flowers, so bees evolved vision as means of finding flowers.
2. Flowers depend on being found by bees, so flowers evolved colors as a means of attracting bees.

The author is arguing for #2, and (A) is meant to strengthen by making us more dubious of #1.

From (A), it sounds like this special vision (we’ve been calling it Bee-Vision, but this answer indicates it transcends bees) is not an evolutionary solution to the problem of needing to find different colored objects.

We don’t know what evolutionary purpose this special vision serves in bees and other insects, but it now seems implausible to suggest that this special vision evolved in order to spot different colors of flowers. Hence, we're more likely to believe the author's take, that bees (and other insects) already had that special vision, and flowers just evolved colors that would take advantage of that vision.

Hope this helps.

[JeremyK460]

premise:
bees can ID colors on flower well

conclusion:
thus, flower-color developed in response to bee-vision
and bee-vision did not develop in response to flower color

deductions or whatever:
bee-vision didn't develop as a response
and bees have a task to ID colors (they seem picky)
if there's no bee, then there's no need for color variation
so if there are only two flower colors that exist,
and bees go for only one,
and other insects go for both
(and common knowledge that insect pollination is crucial to flowers)
this makes it more probable that to maximize their pollination rates,
it's better for flowers to have two colors instead of one