Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStrengthen

Consider the following argument:

Ecologist: In a controlled municipal study, urban green roofs planted exclusively with native sedum species supported a 40 percent higher abundance of native bees than roofs planted with non-native sedum species. Because both groups of roofs had identical total floral surface area and were situated in identical urban microclimates, the higher bee abundance on native sedum roofs must be driven primarily by the superior nutritional quality of native sedum nectar.

Statement: If native bees show no difference in visual attraction to the flower morphology and coloration of native versus non-native sedum species, this finding strengthens the ecologist's conclusion.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True
The conclusion asserts a specific causal mechanism (nectar nutritional quality) to explain a documented correlation (higher bee abundance on native sedum roofs). The supplementary statement demonstrates that visual floral traits (coloration and morphology) do not differ in their appeal to the bees. By eliminating visual attraction as an alternative explanation for why bees congregate on native sedums, the statement provides meaningful logical reinforcement for the author's nectar-quality hypothesis.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument's premises and conclusion
Premise: Native sedum roofs had 40% more native bees despite equal floral surface area and identical microclimates. Conclusion: The preference must be driven primarily by superior nectar nutritional quality.
Identifying the explicit evidence and the exact causal claim reveals the logical gap.
2
Identify the unstated assumption and potential rival causes
The ecologist assumes that non-nutritional factors (such as flower shape, color, or visual attractiveness) do not explain the disparity in bee abundance.
Causal arguments on the LSAT are vulnerable to alternative explanations that could produce the same correlation.
3
Evaluate the impact of the supplementary statement
Confirming that bees do not differ in visual attraction to flower morphology eliminates visual cues as a confounding variable.
Ruling out a plausible alternative explanation directly bolsters the validity of the author's favored causal mechanism.

Key Concept

Strengthening a causal conclusion by eliminating a plausible alternative explanation
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Strengthen

More questions from this topic