In one study of a particular plant species

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact Out of Scope: "populous"27% picked this

   The first study was carried out at the time of year when plants of the species are

   We don't know if the second study was also carried out at the same time, so this answer doesn't offer a difference. Also, "most populous" would mean greatest in number, but since we're talking about percentages, the raw total doesn't matter.

   27%
2. B

   No Impact5% picked this

   The first study, but not the second study, also collected information about patterned stems in

   This is a difference, but we don't care what the 2nd study did relating to other species. That doesn't explain why they got 40% instead of 70% of the species covered by both studies.

   5%
3. C

   Unclear Impact Too Weak5% picked this

   The second study included approximately 15 percent more individual plants than the

   Just like with (A), we're not really concerned with the raw total of how many plants were tested, since we're just talking about percentages. There's a scenario in which the 2nd study checks 15% more plants, and none of those plants have patterned stems, so it lowers the overall percentage of patterned stems. But this doesn't explain a 70% vs. 40% divide, and we'd have to add some implausible or superfluous notion that for some reason there weren't any patterned stems in this bonus 15% of plants.

   5%
4. D

   Correct60% picked this

   The first study used a broader definition

   Why this is right

   More things fit under a broad definition than under a narrow definition. So this can explain why a higher percentage of plants qualified as patterned stems. Maybe the 1st study's definition was "if any part of the stem has a pattern, count it", whereas the 2nd study was like "only if the entire stem is patterned should we count it".

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

   60%
5. E

   No Impact3% picked this

   The focus of the second study was patterned stems, while the first study collected information about patterned stems

   To make this answer work, we'd have to say that "when checking whether the plant has a patterned stem is a primary focus, you count fewer of them as having a patterned stem than when checking for patterned stem is a secondary focus." There's no common sense link from "secondary focus" to "count more of them as patterned stem".

   3%