flash21 wrote: BillPackets wrote:
flash21 wrote:Thread loser checking in. People good at LR please respond. Dont ignore pls.
Pt 42, s2, Q 18
I understand how (A) is correct, but honestly some of the other answers I feel like I'm just making up bull shit so i don't feel bad about myself.
Can someone thoroughly breakdown the other AC's? I already checked manhattan and I'm still a bit at a loss, especially for answer choice (D).
hey flash do you have a good understanding of the argument core?
I think so.
Basically, despite the fact that bees vision is well suited to the task of identifying flowers, its more likely flowers developed to the vision of bees.
Sorry - when you say core, I'm assuming you mean premise and conclusion. This argument isnt typical in that I don't really see a direct premise, it strikes me almost more as a mild paradox type question. Let me know what you think of my assessment.
nah theres a pretty clear premise conclusion.
conclusion: probable that flowers developed in response to type of visions that bees have, rather than vice versa
not much of a premise in this one, the first part is mostly background info that doesnt affect anything.
BUT, so the conclusion is affirming the existence of one type of causal relationship, and denying another. this is a strengthen q.
how do we strengthen this argument?
1) show that when you remove the cause, you remove the effect
2) eliminate alternate explanation
this argument eliminates alternate explanations. A is basically eliminating the possibility that any other type of insect could have had the impact that bees have had flowers. do you see that gap from the core? who's to say that it was because of bees? why not another insect?
basically B-E are way out scope. D is way out of scope because who cares about nonflowering plants? how would that strengthen the argument in any way?
ETA: also flash idk if u have but its good to memorize how to weaken/strengthen causal arguments.
weaken a causes b
take away cause, still get same effect (/a, still get b)
get different effect with same cause (a causes c)
or an alternate explanation (x actually causes b)