Q8 - The Population of a certain wildflower

[esnanees]

I get why D is correct but why is C wrong: wont negating C destroy the argument?

Please help- I can't differentiate between C and D.
thanks a lot!

[a3friedm]

Hey there,

The question stem tells us that the population of of wildflowers is so small the species is heading towards extinction. The wildflower can be bred with daisies however which could result in a significant population of daisy/wildflower hybrids. Even though this will lead to significant changes the wildflower, the author is arguing that it should be done.

Our question stem tells us we're dealing with an assumption question.

(A) We know that when the wildflowers reproduce with daisies they produce seeds, so for the sake of the argument we are not really concerned with how else it reproduces.

(B) Nor are we concerned with how the daisy was bred

(C) Be really careful to keep track of the important information in the stimulus. We are concerned with the population of the wildflower and not the range. Let's try negating it as you mentioned.

"Increasing the population might not expand the range" remember the argument says, hybridization is the only way to prevent total loss of the wildflower in its range. So it's range doesn't have to get bigger, it just cant get any smaller.

(D) If they hybrids can't reproduce, then the population cant increase. This would undermine the argument, (D) is the correct answer.

(E) Pretty far out of scope

Hope this helped

[esnanees]

Thanks a lot- that helped.

[jwms]

Confused by this one still.

Negating A would destroy the argument too, wouldn't it?

If the wildflower currently does not reproduced only by forming seeds, then the whole basis for forming a hybrid is unnecessary, isn't it?

Also, the stimulus explicitly states that the wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy. Answer choice (D) says that this cross-pollination is an assumption ... that doesn't make sense to me.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Good questions, jwms!

I think both your questions rest on a misunderstanding of the breakdown of the argument core. Let's return there for a moment:

PREMISES:
1) Wildflower can cross-pollinate with daisy, and produce viable seeds
2) Hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower
CONCLUSION: We should introduce the daisy to the wildflower's range

We know from the premises that the wildflower can reproduce by forming seeds, but would it make any difference to the argument if this weren't the ONLY way it could reproduce? If we negate (A), we would say that there are other ways for the wildflower to reproduce - maybe by forming little clone-flowers!

But this doesn't destroy the need for hybridization - it can't. Our second premise told us that hybridization is THE ONLY WAY to prevent total loss of the wildflower. We have to respect that premise, and that means that even if there are 5000 other ways the wildflower is capable of reproducing, none of it will matter if we don't get to hybridizing.

So, since we know that hybridization is the wildflower's only hope, it simply does not matter whether the wildflower can reproduce by means other than seeds!

Now, looking at (D), it looks like you're confusing the possibility of the daisy and wildflower reproducing with each other (viability established in the premise) and the possibility of one daisy-wildflower hybrid reproducing with another daisy-wildflower hybrid (the assumption).

The premises only establish that the first generation of this hybridization would work - i.e., Daisy Dad and Wildflower Mom have a Hybrid Kid. But we have no idea if two Hybrid kids can grow up and have babies. Maybe the first generation is all sterile? That's the possibility we raise when we negate (D). If this hybridization produced one generation of hybrid flowers, but none of those hybrids could reproduce, then there's no reason to bother introducing the daisy - the wildflower would still be doomed with daisy-hybridization, it would just be delayed a generation.

What do you think?

[cyt5015]

If we negate answer D, will it destroy the premise "hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range? That's why I feel this question is a bit odd because the validity of the premise also depends on answer D. For most necessary questions, the above situation won't happen, right?

[vita.viktor]

The premise states "this wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy, producing viable seeds". This statement makes it clear the hybrid plant is capable of producing viable seeds. To me, the term "viable seeds" means seeds that can germinate and grow into a new plant. Therefore Answer D is simply rephrasing this premise.

Does "viable seeds" mean something different that I am not aware of?

THanks.