Creating a database of all the plant

Answer choices

1. A

   Compatible4% picked this

   Most of the duplicates and omissions among plant names in the scientific record have yet

   It's certainly possible that most of the errors are still in the record. To contradict this, we would have needed to hear that "we're almost done correcting our mistakes", or something like that.

   4%
2. B

   Compatible4% picked this

   An accurate database of all the plant species in the scientific record can serve as an aid to

   This is very weakly worded and sounds very plausible. One would think that an accurate database of all plant species could be helpful. To pick this, we would have needed to read that "an accurate database of all plant species is useless to botanists.

   4%
3. C

   Compatible13% picked this

   Duplicates and omissions in the scientific record also occur in fields

   We never talked about other fields, so this is definitely possible. We can't contradict something we didn't talk about. In order to pick this answer, we would have needed to read that only botany has a problem with duplicates and omissions.

   13%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   Botanists have no techniques for determining whether distinct plant species have been

   Why this is right

   This is contradicted by the last sentence. One reason we might be attracted to this answer is its strong language, "Botanists have no techniques". To contradict that claim, we only need evidence that "botanists have at least one technique that can determine whether distinct species have been given distinct names." We do have such a technique: DNA analysis. In the last sentence, DNA analysis was a technique that enable botanists to realize that they had mistakenly taken distinct plant species and categorized them as different varieties of one species. In other words, DNA analysis is a technique that allowed botanists to determine that distinct plant species had not been given distinct names. (when other answer choices are referring to omissions, this is what they're referring to)

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

   72%
5. E

   Compatible6% picked this

   A person who consults the scientific record looking under only one of a plant's names may miss available

   This seems possible. We heard that there are duplicate entries in the record. Someone nowadays discovers what they think is something new and catalogues it as a new species, not realizing that someone already discovered this species back in 1989. This answer choice is saying that it's possible that if you only look up the 1989 entry, you could miss some available information about that plant. That seems conceivably true, if the modern entry for that species contains any additional info that wasn't in the 1989 entry. In order to contradict this answer, we'd need to have read that every entry in the scientific record for a given species contains identical information. Whether you're reading the 1971 discovery of species X, the time we duplicate-recorded in 1989, or the time we duplicate-recorded it in 2021, all those entries contain the exact same information.

   6%