PrepTest 137, Section 2, Question 21
The presence of bees is necessary for excellent(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe argument fails(16 more words not shown)
- BThe argument confuses(16 more words not shown)
- CThe argument confuses(17 more words not shown)
- DThe argument fails(20 more words not shown)
- EThe argument bases(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Bees can fly over from next door.
That's the possibility this argument misses. A gardener could have no beehives but still get visits from a neighbor's bees, or from wild bees nearby. Owning a hive is one way to ensure bees are present; it hasn't been established as the only way.
Keep the links separate. Excellent pollination requires bees. A hive guarantees bees, but that doesn't mean bees require the gardener to keep a hive. So even if gardeners without a use for honey tend not to keep bees, it doesn't follow that their gardens lack bees or must miss out on excellent pollination.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for the overlooked alternative way of getting bees. We don't need to prove these gardens will be well pollinated. We only need to show why not keeping a hive doesn't rule it out.
Working the answers
- A
The argument already recognizes another advantage associated with beehives: supplying the bees needed for excellent pollination. It nevertheless gives us the premise that keeping bees is economical only if the gardener uses the honey. Listing other possible advantages doesn't identify the leap from having no hive to having no excellent pollination.
- B
This describes treating a requirement for pollination as a guarantee of pollination. But the conclusion doesn't say that having bees guarantees excellent pollination. It moves from not keeping beehives to failing to have excellent pollination. The mistaken step is treating the hive as the only way to get bees. B targets the wrong relationship and direction.
- C
Abundant fruits and vegetables are mentioned as a usual result of excellent pollination. The conclusion, however, is about the failure to have excellent pollination, not a guaranteed lack of abundant produce. The reasoning goes wrong earlier, in deciding whether bees can be present without the gardener's own hives.
- DCorrect
The ‘particular condition’ is establishing beehives near the garden. That ensures bees, but bees could also arrive from wild hives or a neighbor's property. They might be present even without the condition that guarantees their presence. The argument overlooks those other routes when it predicts poor pollination for gardeners who don't keep bees.
- E
We aren't merely shown two things occurring together and then asked to infer that one causes the other. The premises directly give us relationships between hives, bees, and excellent pollination. The error lies in treating one stated way to ensure bees as the only way, not in deriving causation from a statistical association.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.