Being near woodlands, the natural

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct85% picked this

   The likelihood that a plant is pollinated increases as the number of visits

   Why this is right

   We were looking for a link from "visited more often" to "promotes the health". This is supplying a link from "visited more often" to "more likely to be pollinated". So is it fair for us to think that "more likely pollinated" = "promotes health"? Sure, after all, these crops are identified as "crops that depend on pollination". If being visited by bees more often increases the likelihood of something that these crops depend on, it sounds reasonable to think that this promotes the health of these crops.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
2. B

   Weakens, if anything1% picked this

   Many bees live in habitats other

   This is very weak wording ("many" doesn't have a precise definition, but at least five is a good functional one), so it's very unlikely to be correct on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. Plus, the author is saying "being near woodlands is good for crops because that's the natural habitat of bees". If we point to there being bees away from the woodlands, that would start to drift towards a counterargument where we're saying, "we don't need to put these crops near the woodlands. There are bees in other places too."

   1%
3. C

   Too Weak Weakens, if anything3% picked this

   Woodlands are not the natural habitat of

   This is also incredibly weak wording. It is saying, "There is at least one pollinator that doesn't live near the woodlands". That's hardly a game-changer. We already know that bees make their home naturally in the woods, and that bees are the most common pollinator. Plus, just like (B), if we start talking about bees or other pollinators living away from the woodlands then we actually have less reason to think that putting crops near the woodlands offers an important benefit of being closer to pollinators.

   3%
4. D

   Weakens, if anything Too Weak5% picked this

   Some pollinators visit flowers far from their habitats more often than they visit flowers close

   Another weakly worded answer -- some, sometimes, could, can, might, not all, not always are almost never in the correct answer for Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox. The fact that there's at least one pollinator that visits far-flowers more than close-flowers would only weaken the logic of this argument. This argument is saying, "be close to the woodlands, so that you're close to bees, because bees visit close-flowers more than far-flowers."

   5%
5. E

   Irrelevant Distinction Weakens, if anything5% picked this

   Many crops that are not near woodlands depend

   This is another answer, like (B), (C), and (D), that seems to be offering us counterexamples. (B) - bees don't always live in the woodlands (C) - not all pollinators have woodlands as their natural habitat (D) - not all pollinators visit close-flowers more than far-flowers (E) - not all crops are near the woodlands These are all moving away from what we were talking about in the argument.

   5%