Henry: Some scientists explain the dance of honeybees as the means by which honeybees communicate the location of wh...
MariamSeptember 24, 2019
Why is C wrong?
I have read the explanation in the previous thread of why C is wrong; but my question is how do I know that the statement is questioning Henry's claim and not his evidence of honeybees leaving a scent?
I can see that the answer below is very thorough, but can someone perhaps come up with/point towards a statement that would be/is questioning Henry's evidence? I'm just wondering how to distinguish (questioning evidence vs. questioning conclusion), or if it's just a matter of thinking it through?
Below is what I read from before:
Answer C is incorrect because it is not attempting to call into
question key evidence cited by Henry. The statement that bees of
certain species can navigate using either the position of the Sun or
the memory of the landmarks is supporting the claim that most animals
have several ways of accomplishing critical tasks, which is in turn
used to support the conclusion that there doesn't necessarily have to
be some other explanation for the honeybees' dance. Winifred is
calling into question Henry's conclusion, not Henry's evidence.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Henry really only offers one piece of evidence for his conclusion: that forager honeybees use simple scent trails to communicate rather than complicated dances.
Here are some things that Winifred could have said that would have questioned Henry's evidence.
"Actually, forager honeybees only leave scent trails for the purpose of attracting mates." "Actually, forager honeybees are the only type of honeybee capable of leaving scent trails. Others must find another method."
These statements would be questioning the evidence presented by Henry. However, this is not what Winifred does. Winifred does not dispute the fact that forager honeybees use scent trails to communicate food sources. Rather, Winifred questions Henry's interpretation of this evidence. Henry draws one claim from this evidence, but Winifred draws an opposing claim from the same evidence. This is how we know he is supporting a different claim rather than questioning the evidence.
Does that make sense?
MariamSeptember 25, 2019
What about the last statement in Winifred's argument "Similarly, for honeybees, scent trails are a supplementary not an exclusive means of communicating." ? Is it questioning the evidence or trying to say that the evidence is not conclusive? And what is the difference?
Yes, what you're saying makes sense. BTW, I started studying for the LSAT 3 days ago and I'm new to all of it, so I really appreciate your explanations.
shunheJanuary 8, 2020
Hi @Mariam,
This last sentence of Winifred' argument states her conclusion: scent trails for honey bees are a supplementary, not an exclusive, means of communicating. The other claims she make help support this conclusion. Hope this helps.
Brett-LindsayJune 28, 2020
Hi @shunhe,
I had interpreted her first sentence as being her conlcusion - a direct refutation of what Henry had said.
When I use the "therfore" test, that also makes sense:
"scent trails are a supplementary not an exclusive means of communicating." Therefore, "There isn't necessarily another explanation for the honey bee dance."
