#18 - While it is true that bees' vision is well suited to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-CE. The correct answer choice is (A)

In this relatively difficult question, the stimulus establishes a cause and effect relationship between the ability of bees to identify flowers by their colors and the flower color: according to the author, the flowers developed their colors in response to the bees' vision and not the other way around. The author provides no explanation for her conclusion: it is crucial to prephrase one before looking at the answer choices.

Cause Effect

Bees' vision Flower color

Since the reverse causation seems equally plausible, the best way to strengthen the author's argument is to show that the bees' ability to identify flowers by their color was the cause for, and not the result of, flower coloration. If the bees' ability were indeed the product of selective pressure exerted by the flower color and not the other way around, we would expect all insects that rely on flowers for food to have evolved in a manner similar to that of bees and possess the ability to perceive an object's color. A finding to the contrary can only mean one thing: that neither the bees, nor any other insect species whose vision is similar to that of bees, evolved in response to flower color. By negating the reverse cause-and-effect relationship, such a finding would strengthen the author's conclusion.

Answer choice (A): this is the correct answer choice. If many insects have vision similar to that of bees but do not depend on perceiving flower color, then color exerted no evolutionary pressure on these species to adapt. Due to their similarity to bees, we can expect that bees too did not evolve as a result of flower color. By eliminating a possible reverse cause-and-effect relationship, answer choice (A) strenghtens the author's position and is therefore correct.

Answer choice (B): If some flowers rely on insects other than bees, the selective pressure that bees exert on flowers may be weaker than anticipated. This answer choice suggests that the reverse cause-and-effect relationship is more likely to be true (bees developing in response to flower color), thus weakening the author's argument. Answer choice (B) does the exact opposite of what is needed and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): The relative number of species of flower and bees is immaterial to establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between bees' vision and flower color.

Answer choice (D): Nonflowering plants fall outside the scope of this argument, which is about the evolution of flowering plants.

Answer choice (E): If present-day bees rely exclusively on flowers for their food, it is possible that bees evolved in response to flower color and not the other way around, as any bee species whose vision was not well suited to the task of identifying flowers by their colors ultimately perished. Answer choice (E) therefore lends support to the reverse cause-and-effect relationship and weakens the conclusion.

[brittany1990]

I understand that the stimulus establishes a cause and effect relationship between the ability of bees to identify flowers by their colors and the flower color. When going through the five answer choices, I identified answers B-D as losers and was left with answer A as the only contender. Although I was left with the correct answer choice, I still do not 100% understand why answer A is correct.

Brittany

[Jon Denning]

Hey Brittany - thanks for the question. You're correct about the causality in the argument here: the way that bees see color CAUSED flowers to develop their specific colors (and not the other way around, where bees evolved because of flowers). We need to support the vision --> flower color idea.

Answer choice A strengthens this argument by saying that vision like that of bees often does not depend on seeing colors, meaning it would not develop in response to color. This directly attacks the reversal of the causal argument (says that color --> vision is probably false), making the original causal relationship of vision --> color more likely.

Remember, to strengthen a causal argument you will typically do the opposite of one of the ways we weaken causality. Meaning eliminating alt causes, showing the cause and effect occurring together at other times, and making a reversal unlikely/impossible (as is done here).

I hope that helps!

Jon

[Sdaoud17]

Even I got the answer Right I am having a hard time understanding the online explanation. So here is how I approached the question.

what I understood for the stimulus is that
Flower developed in response to Bees vision not the other way around. and I actually diagramed it this way.

Flower Develop (color) Bee vision Is correct and

Not (Bee vision Flower develop)

Now when I read the answer choices I was kinda becuase I thought I was wrong in my digram. So I checked it again and I foundout I was right. when I read the Answers again:

A) I liked it even though I didnot understand it clearly .

B) its weaken

C) Skipped it out side of the scope

D) its talking talking about the Nonflowers out

E) Bees flower for food (weaken)

In the end I choice A because I digramed A which is

insects Vision (like Bees) object color which is in other way of saying that :
Bee vision Flower develop is wrong.



Can you help me out, Maybe there is something I am missing even though I got the answer right, I would approach it faster and effective.

Thank you

[Nikki Siclunov]

This is a somewhat tricky question. You're correct in your understanding of the stimulus: the author argues that flowers developed in response to bees' vision, not the other way around. However, I'm not sure I follow your diagram. The causation the author believes in is this:

Bees vision (cause) Flowers (effect)

NOT:

Flowers (cause) Bees vision (effect)

(A) strengthens the argument by virtue of analogy. If insects similar to bees do not depend on perceiving the object's color, this eliminates the possibility that these insects developed their vision in response to the flowers. By the same analogy, we can presume that bees, too, did not develop their vision in response to the flowers. So, it must be the other way around. By eliminating the Reverse Cause/Effect, answer choice (A) strengthens the argument.

Hope this helps! Let me know.

[Sdaoud17]

Great . I got it thank you !

[rameday]

I got this question correct. I feel like i understand why I got it correct subconsciously but I just want to make sure that I explicitly understanding the explanation on the student centre. I understand that we need to strengthen the BV FC relationship. One way of doing that is to eliminate the FC BV relationship. So is that why A is correct? Because it shows that in insets much like bees the relationship isn't FC BV relationship?

I am having a tough time I think really pinning down wat is the cause and what is the effect in both the stimulus and the correct answer.

A

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Good question. First of all, nice work getting it right! The author says that flowers likely adapted to bees vision, and that bees' vision probably did not adapt to flower colors.

If many insects that have developed similar visual tools do not use their vision to see color, that strengthens the assertion that bees' vision probably did not adapt their vision to see colors either.

I hope that's helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

Steve

[rameday]

Yes that makes sense.

[Steve Stein]

That's great--thanks for your response--I'm glad that was helpful!

Steve