The presence of bees

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak8% picked this

   The argument fails to consider the possibility that obtaining homegrown honey is only one of

   This is almost pushing at the author assumption that "if it's not economical to keep bees, people will tend not to have beehives". However, since tend to is loose and allows for a lot of exceptions, it won't really weaken the author's argument to say, "Sometimes there are other reasons why someone would want a beehive!" The author would be like, "Sure. I agree. I'm just sayin' that if they have no use for honey, then it won't be economical, so they will tend not to have one."

   8%
2. B

   Trap14% picked this

   The argument confuses what is necessary for pollination to take place with what would guarantee

   Not the Rule the Author is Confusing First of all, we only have a rule about what's required for excellent pollination. There might be a different rule for what's needed for standard pollination. More importantly, the author isn't messing up the logic of "If no bees, then no pollination. The author is messing up the rule "if beehive, then bees" (she's thinking "if no beehive, then no bees").

   14%
3. C

   Trap4% picked this

   The argument confuses what is necessary for an abundance of fruits and vegetables with what is

   Not the Rule the Author is Confusing We know that excellent pollination is usually conducive to an abundance of fruits and veggies. Does the author ever make it seem like something is necessary for an abundance of fruits and veggies? No. That part of the argument isn't involved in either conclusion.

   4%
4. D

   Correct69% picked this

   The argument fails to consider that bees might be present even in the absence of a particular condition

   Why this is right

   Is there a particular condition that would ensure the presence of bees? Yes, establishing a beehive or two ensures the presence of bees. Is the author failing to consider that bees might be present even if you don't have a beehive? Yes. In her conclusion she is thinking no use for honey → no beehive → no bees → no excellent pollination But we were never told that "if you don't have a beehive, you won't have bees". We could thwart her conclusion by saying, "Someone might have no use for honey and no beehive, but still have plenty of bees present in their yard (maybe because of a nice flower garden) and thus still have excellent pollination)."

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

   69%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match5% picked this

   The argument bases a claim that there is a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination on a

   This is fishing for a different famous flaw, the Causal Flaw, where the evidence consists of X and Y being correlated, and the conclusion assumes that one causes the other. The conclusion does imply a causal connection between beehives and excellent pollination, but there is no premise that says that "beehives and good pollination" are correlated. We only heard that beehives and the presence of bees are correlated (to a strong conditional degree!), and that excellent pollination was also correlated (to a strong conditional degree) with the presence of bees. While both beehives and pollination are being correlated with the same thing (presence of bees), they are not being correlated with each other. The fact that X and Y are correlated with the same thing doesn't mean they're correlated with each other. Being a Senator is correlated with being a man, and being a fan of pro wrestling is correlated with being a man, but that doesn't mean there's an association between being a Senator and being a fan of pro wrestling.

   5%