Q3 - Insectivorous plants, which unlike other

[b91302310]

I chose (D) for this question and was wondering why (E) is the correct answer. I think (E) could be true but is not necessarily true since there might be some other reasons for insectivorous plants being adapted to soils that are too poor in mineral.

Could anyone explain what I missed ?

Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

You're not wrong when you say that (E) is not necessarily true. But this question doesn't ask us for something that "must be true," it asks us for the hypothesis (i.e., inference) that's most strongly supported by the statements. So it's okay if the answer choice isn't 100%, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt provable.

Now, we're told that insectivorous plants, which unlike normal plants can eat insects, are able to thrive in soils that are too poor in minerals for normal plants. It's a very small leap to infer that the insectivorous plants are getting some of the minerals they require by eating insects. Is it possible that there's some other explanation, that being insectivorous carries with it some ancillary mineral-gathering benefit not directly connected to eating bugs? Yeah, it's possible, but it's still pretty overwhelmingly likely that what allows insectivorous plants to live where non-insectivorous plants cannot is the fact that they eat insects.

So (E) is correct. Why are the others incorrect?

(A) is incorrect because we don't have any basis to say that these insects are especially abundant in mineral-deprived areas. All we can say is that there must be some insects in some mineral-deprived areas.

(B) goes further than the given statements. We know that insectivorous plants can thrive where normal plants cannot, but that doesn't mean such places are the only ones where they thrive.

(C) kind of contradicts what we're told about the essential similarity between the two plant types' mineral requirements.

(D) is tempting, because we do know there are some places where insectivorous plants thrive and normal plants do not. But, there could just as easily be places where the reverse is true, for reasons unrelated to mineral content. So we can't infer this.

Does that answer your question?

[farhadshekib]

Thanks for the question.

You're not wrong when you say that (E) is not necessarily true. But this question doesn't ask us for something that "must be true," it asks us for the hypothesis (i.e., inference) that's most strongly supported by the statements. So it's okay if the answer choice isn't 100%, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt provable.

Now, we're told that insectivorous plants, which unlike normal plants can eat insects, are able to thrive in soils that are too poor in minerals for normal plants. It's a very small leap to infer that the insectivorous plants are getting some of the minerals they require by eating insects. Is it possible that there's some other explanation, that being insectivorous carries with it some ancillary mineral-gathering benefit not directly connected to eating bugs? Yeah, it's possible, but it's still pretty overwhelmingly likely that what allows insectivorous plants to live where non-insectivorous plants cannot is the fact that they eat insects.

So (E) is correct. Why are the others incorrect?

(A) is incorrect because we don't have any basis to say that these insects are especially abundant in mineral-deprived areas. All we can say is that there must be some insects in some mineral-deprived areas.

(B) goes further than the given statements. We know that insectivorous plants can thrive where normal plants cannot, but that doesn't mean such places are the only ones where they thrive.

(C) kind of contradicts what we're told about the essential similarity between the two plant types' mineral requirements.

(D) is tempting, because we do know there are some places where insectivorous plants thrive and normal plants do not. But, there could just as easily be places where the reverse is true, for reasons unrelated to mineral content. So we can't infer this.

Does that answer your question?

If this is not a Must Be True question, then what would you classify it as?

I thought that inference = must be true... no?

[giladedelman]

No, not quite! On inference questions, we're always looking for the most provable answer. Some questions ask us explicitly for the answer that "must be true," but that's only a sub-category of inference questions. If "must be true" isn't in the question stem, then we shouldn't expect the answer to be a 100% lock.

[farhadshekib]

No, not quite! On inference questions, we're always looking for the most provable answer. Some questions ask us explicitly for the answer that "must be true," but that's only a sub-category of inference questions. If "must be true" isn't in the question stem, then we shouldn't expect the answer to be a 100% lock.

ahhh... makes sense. thanks.