#16 - Some scientists explain the dance of honey bees

[PeterC123]

Hi,

Is B wrong b/c "some other explanation" is not the same as more than one valid explanation?

I have a problem with answer C, Winifred never directly said that honeybees communicate the location of food through dance, he merely said that scent trails are supplementary. Am I suppose to make that leap and infer that he means honeybees do in fact communicate through dance?

Thanks,

[David Boyle]

Hi,

Is B wrong b/c "some other explanation" is not the same as more than one valid explanation?

I have a problem with answer C, Winifred never directly said that honeybees communicate the location of food through dance, he merely said that scent trails are supplementary. Am I suppose to make that leap and infer that he means honeybees do in fact communicate through dance?

Thanks,

Hello,

As for answer B, in theory, maybe they both believe there's only one valid explanation, though they might disagree on what that explanation is. (So when you bring up "Is B wrong b/c "some other explanation" is not the same as more than one valid explanation?", that might be true: maybe Henry thinks there's only one valid explanation.)
As for answer C, when Winifred says, "scent trails are a supplementary not an exclusive means of communicating", that seems to imply that dance is the primary means of communicating.

Hope this helps,
David

[lsattesttaker93]

I am not sure if I get what Win thinks about AC B and am very confused with this question.

What is the difference between "There is more than one way of doing critical tasks, like food finding" versus "There is more than one explanation for the dance of the bees"

Is this the same as "There is more than one way of exercising" versus "There is more than on explanation for running"

I don't really understand the difference as they seem like the same thing?

[Robert Carroll]

lsattesttaker93,

Is this the same as "There is more than one way of exercising" versus "There is more than on explanation for running"

This seems spot on to me. I'll try to make my own analogy to help as well, but what you said here indicates you're on the right track.

Let's say I visit the grocery store to visit my friend, who works there. I could visit my friend somewhere else, like her house; I could also go to the grocery store for other reasons, like shopping for food.

Henry could say this: "You didn't need to go to the grocery store to see your friend - there are plenty of other places to see her. So there must be a different explanation for going to the grocery store."

Winifred could say this: "There are several ways for him to see his friend, but that just means that the same task (seeing the friend) can be accomplished different ways. In this particular grocery store visit, we have no reason to doubt that the sole purpose was seeing his friend - going to someone's house is an alternative way to accomplish a meeting and supplements rather than excludes going instead to the store."

Who thinks there's more than one valid explanation for my store visit? Henry thinks that a particular explanation is not true - I wasn't being social. Does he think there are multiple alternative explanations, or just one? He doesn't really say. Winifred thinks there is one explanation - I was there to visit my friend. So, again, which one disagrees with what answer choice (B) says? Not clearly either, and this is why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

Robert Carroll