#8 - Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower

[pacer]

Can you go over the stimulus for this question?

I had trouble prephrasing the assumption for this one and wasn't sure about any of the answer choices.

Two points I thought about from the stimulus were:

One:

P = "can cross-pollinate with daisy"
C = hybridization is the only means

so, based on this I thought that the author is assuming that since the two flower types "can" cross pollinate with each other that they "will" actually cross pollinate to make the hybrids

Two:

"hybridization is the only means"

Since the author has failed to look at any alternatives here, we can say that the author assumes that there are no other ways to save the population from going to extinction

None of the answer choices matched my thinking

Choice D seems a little off to me - hybrids can reproduce seems far fetched
this answer choice in itself assumes that some amount (probably all) of wildflowers will eventually be replaced by the hybrids

[Adam Tyson]

One way to assist in your analysis here may be to look at some key words in the stimulus, like the word "since", which, like "because", indicates a premise. For the most part, on this test we accept all premises as true - it's the conclusions that we tend to doubt.

You have identified as the conclusion the author's claim that hybridization is the only means of ensuring the plant's survival, but that claims is introduced by that key premise indicator, "since". The real conclusion here is that the daisy should be introduced into the range of the endangered wildflower.

At this point we have an argument that, in it's simplest form, boils down to "we can do it, so we should do it." That matches up nicely with the principle question that followed the stimulus.

This assumption question gets a little tricky, in my view. Rather than being about the link between premises and conclusion, it's more about questioning the validity of that premise (the one you thought was the conclusion). It's a defender assumption, not a supporter.

None of my prephrases really helped me, either, although in hindsight I expect I should have thought about the purpose behind the proposal. The author wants to save the wildflower, right? To do that, he says that we should introduce the daisy so they can cross-pollinate. The assumption, then, must be that this will actually accomplish his goal - the wildflower will be saved (albeit in an altered form - again, see the principle in q7). To attack that argument, suggest that it won't work, and to defend it, ASSUME that it will work!

Think about the negation of answer D - what if the hybrids CAN'T reproduce? What will happen to the wildflower? It will die out anyway, even after hybridizing with the daisy! If the author believes his argument is good, he has to believe that it WILL be able to reproduce, rather than die out.

I hope that helped shed a little light on it for you. Take another look and see if it doesn't make more sense now. Good luck in your continued studies!

[IBleedPurple]

I have a hard time figuring out why D is a better answer than A. I would ASSUME that hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss if the Wildflower can only reproduce through cross pollination. But if I negate, A, I get : The wildflower currently does not only reproduce by forming seeds which clearly weakens the conclusion. Answer D when negated also weakens the argument maybe to a stronger extent but is the extent something we have to take into consideration? It seems A is ASSUMED when making the argument while D follows from the conclusion. Could you please help? Thank you. I think it's a fundamental problem I experience about choosing an answer that justifies a conclusion and one which is an assumption needed for the conclusion to be drawn.

[James Finch]

Hi I Bleed Purple,

As a Defender Assumption question, the correct answer choice will enable the conclusion to be true (although it won't be sufficient to make it so), meaning that if the correct answer choice is untrue/negated, then the conclusion will also be untrue/negated, not just weakened. This is why the Assumption Negation technique works and will allow us to always clearly see which answer choice is correct.

Here, answer choice (A) would be negated as:

The wildflower does notonly reproduce by forming seeds
hybridization is not the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower

This is possible, but we don't know this to be 100% true based on what we have in the stimulus, as the alternative reproductive method would also have to be viable enough to prevent extinction.

Contrast this to the negation of (D):

The hybrids won't be able to reproduce hybridization is not the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower

The phrasing here works out a little odd (one would expect that "not the only means" implies that it is one of multiple rather than not a viable means at all) but the meaning still works within the logical bounds set by the conclusion's negation: if the hybrids can't reproduce, then the hybridization isn't a means of preventing the total loss of the wildflower at all, let alone the only means of doing so.

Hope this clears things up!

[Hazel03]

Hey! I am not able to understand why A is incorrect.

If I negate A - The wildflower currently reproduces not only by forming seeds - i.e there are other ways for it to reproduce. Then why does hybridization still remain so crucial as the author claims? Please help!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Hazel,

With assumptions, we are looking for something required for the conclusion to be true. We always have to start with the conclusion, which here is that the daisy should be introduced into the wildflower's range. Answer choice (a) talks about how the wildflower currently reproduces, but not how the daisy would impact reproduction. It wouldn't hurt the argument to say that the wildflower currently does not only reproduce with other wildflowers. Similarly, it wouldn't hurt the argument to say that the wildflower currently does not only reproduce using seeds. We want to know how it could reproduce in the future, not how it reproduces now.

The correct answer choice, however, hurts the argument when negated. If the seeds from the hybrid plants cannot reproduce, the daisy hybridization would not help save the wildflower. If the hybrids can't reproduce, they aren't a viable way of saving any of the wildflower genes.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[Henry Z]

I have reservations about D because I feel there's a major gap between "able to reproduce" and "not going to extinction". Specifically, I was thinking about the panda (barely reproduce by themselves, but helped by artificial reproduction) and the mule (unable to reproduce, but population increases due to easy cross-breeding, the animal version of cross-pollination).

Furthermore, what does extinction mean? If hybridization produces "viable seeds", doesn't that mean we can always grow the wildflower, thus have "the means of preventing the total loss of the wildflower"? Why does it matter whether the hybrids themselves can reproduce? Again, as long as we can cross-breed mules, do we have to worry about mules heading for extinction because they can't reproduce?

[seanjae]

I can't really see why (A) cannot be the answer.

If the wildflowers could reproduce by other means than seeds, then how could hybridization (to form seeds) be the only means of preventing loss of the wildflowers in its range? As a matter of fact, in terms of an assumption that the argument "depends on" I think this makes a better choice than (D).

Thanks in advance

[Luke Haqq]

Hi seanjae!

Happy to address answer choice (A).

First, let's start with the conclusion of this stimulus: "The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower’s range." What reasons does the author give for this conclusion? The stimulus explains that this is because the wildflower is heading for extinction, and that hybridizing it with a type of daisy could prevent a total extinction of this wildflower.

Second, just to review, let's apply the Assumption Negation technique to the correct answer (D), which makes that answer choice read, "Wildflower-daisy hybrids will [not] be able to reproduce." If this were true, then even if pollination could create such hybrids, it wouldn't stop extinction of the wildflower--since there wouldn't be any subsequent generations that were produced. The argument would fall apart if this were negated, which is how we can confirm that (D) is correct.

Third, let's apply the Assumption Negation technique to answer (A), making it read, "The wildflower [does not] currently reproduce[] only by forming seeds." In other words, it reproduces by forming seeds and other methods as well. If this were true, the conclusion still makes sense that "The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower’s range." Even if it had other methods of reproduction, the wildflower is still facing extinction because of the small size of its population. There just aren't enough of them in the population to avoid extinction, regardless of how they reproduce.

Creating hybrids is the proposed solution to this problem, because it will increase the population size. However, that solution only makes sense if it's assumed that these hybrids will also be able to reproduce. If they couldn't then this proposal wouldn't avert extinction.

[sofcu23]

Just want to point to what Henry Z said above, as that was my same reason why I ruled D out.

What's stopping us from just crossing the wildflower with the daisy forever to ensure the wildflower survives? Why would the hybrids themselves need to reproduce? I felt that I had to "help" answer choice D by adding my own knowledge of biology, which seems contrary to the LSAT.

I would appreciate any insight as to how why D is necessary, thank you!