Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 18

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon — Bee eyes are well equipped to ID flowers by color
Improbable explanation — Bee vision developed in response to flower color
Probable explanation — Flowers evolved in response to the type of vision bees have

Answer Anticipation:
This is an interesting Strengthen stimulus in that it doesn't present an argument. However, we can view it through one of our standard structures—the phenomenon/explanation structure.

The stimulus opens by making an observation about an ability that bee eyes have. From that, it reaches a conclusion about the probable" explanation for that phenomenon—that the flowers evolved to attract bees, rather than that bee eyes developed to ID flower color.

When there are two explanations offered and one is said to be the better one, it's important to compare those two theories. Here, there are two key differences in the way that the two are phrased.

First, the preferred theory is about flower development, not flower color development. In other words, the preferred theory is that flowers generally developed in response to something about bees, not that they developed color in response to it. This answer splits the development of flowers from the issue of the development of their color.

Second, the preferred theory talks about the type of vision bees have, not bee vision specifically or bee color vision. This opens up the possibility that an answer could talk about this broader type of vision instead of tailoring itself to bees.

The directionality of the two explanations is also reversed (what led to the development of what), but these two differences could also be key in our analysis. Let's head into the answers looking for something that supports the preferred explanation here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer can feel really out of scope at first, but it connects vision, bees, and color, so we should dig in. First, these insects with vision "very similar" to that of bees are in scope because the probable explanation is about the "type" of vision that bees have. If insects with the same type of vision as bees don't rely on perceiving color, then that divorces color from what insects are attracted to. As such, it's less likely that bee eyes developed to see flower color and more likely that flowers developed to attract insects with this type of vision, only some of which rely on color.

Key Takeaway:
This is a rough question. The best takeaways we can offer you are:
(1) When an argument puts forward two explanations that are similar, focus on any differences—no matter how small—and look for answers that address those.
(2) When you're completely lost, focus on answers that tie into the concepts in the stimulus. Here, answer choice (A) has more concepts from the stimulus than the others.

Incorrect. If anything, this suggests that flowers don't need bees, so they wouldn't develop to attract them, cutting against the argument.

Incorrect. This answer is out of scope—the relative number of species of flowers and bees doesn't address the order that specific traits developed in each.

Incorrect. The argument claims that flowers developed to attract bees, so, if anything, nonflowering plants being able to attract bees runs counter to that. Why would plants need to develop flowers to attract bees if they could do so without flowers? (It doesn't actually weaken the argument as flowers could be better than whatever nonflowering plants use, but it pushes in that direction more than strengthening the argument).

Incorrect. By limiting itself to discussing present—day bees, this answer fails to address how these things developed in the past.