#18 - While it is true that bees' vision is well suited to

[est15]

I was able to eliminate B and E. B is wrong because if some flowers rely on other insects, then it's likely that they would have developed specifically for bees. E is wrong because if bees rely exclusively on flowers, it's more likely that their vision would be developed in response to flowers. For A, C, and D I thought they were abstract and I couldn't figure out how they even affected the argument. How exactly does A support the fact that flowers developed in response to bees' vision?

[Ron Gore]

Hi Est,

Thanks for your question. You ask:

How exactly does A support the fact that flowers developed in response to bees' vision?

Your difficulty in seeing the relevance of answer choice (A) tells me that you are missing a critical phrase in the stimulus, i.e., "type of vision that bees have." The stimulus is about the type of vision, not the fact that it is the bees' specifically. Insects with this type of vision may be able to identify flowers by their colors, but they did not evolve for that specific purpose.

Their type of vision adapted the way it did for some other reason. Their ability to identify flowers by their colors is a side-effect of that development, but was not the evolutionary mandate that led to the ability. So, those insects with a type of vision very similar to that of bees may need that type of vision for some other reason, but also enjoy the side effect of being able to distinguish flowers by their colors.

If it were the other way around, that insects with that type of vision developed it so that they could distinguish flowers by their color, then that would indicate that there was an evolutionary mandate for them to do so. It was necessary for their survival. If answer choice (A) is true, then it was the flowers that had the need for bees to be able to distinguish them by their colors, and not the insects that had the need to do so. So, answer choice (A) strengthens the conclusion that it was the flowers that had the need, and not the insects.

Please let me now if I can help further.

Thanks,

Ron

[z.em]

Hello,

In order to strengthen this question we must prove that bee's vision is independent of the flower's color? The insects that have the same vision as them do no perceive the flower's color which means that the flower's color is not the cause of the vision but the effect of the vision--but the vision can occur without the effect...because it is the cause? Does this reasoning help strengthen? Thanks.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Zem,

"Prove" is a little strong for our job here. As explained above, we are to help strengthen the plausibility of the explanation that the flowers evolved in response to the bees rather than the bees evolving in response to the flowers.

While this question is difficult, it is notable that the conclusion itself encapsulates the gap in its reasoning and provides the alternative explanation that you need to rule out, namely that the bees evolved in response to the flowers' colors.

You correctly identify that granted that other insects share bees' vision, we now know that the alternative purported effect occurs in the absence of the purported cause.

As the explanation above notes, by providing evidence that helps decrease the likelihood that vision developed in response to the flowers' colors, we increase the likelihood of the alternative explanation that the alternate relationship occurred, that the flowers evolved in response to bees' vision.

A brief note: you make an unsupported assumption that "the insects that have the same vision as them do no perceive the flower's color." For all we know, the other insects do perceive the flowers' colors. They do share similar vision with the bees, after all. The fact that they have this vision simply suggests that such vision did not arise in response to the flowers, since these other insects presumably do not have a symbiotic relationship with these flowers.

[mglander]

Hi!

I have been looking at this question for quite some time now, and am very frustrated.

I diagrammed this correctly when doing the question, and had BV -> (causes) Flower Development next to the question when I was doing the homework. However, when I got to the answer choices things went south fast.

I eliminated C and D immediately because I thought they were irrelevant to the question, and ultimately ended up with choice A and B.

I selected choice B because I thought, well if some flowers rely on insects other than bees, they probably adapted to attract insects with those types of visions. ie. insects vision caused flower development kind of parallel to that of bees vision causing flower development. Was my problem here making assumptions that were way outside of scope?

Also, choice A, can you explain how that is correct in context of the causal relationship.

This was the only question that I struggled with in the section, and any guidance would be wonderful!

-Megan

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Mglander,

I understand your difficulty here! This is a challenging causal reasoning question because it helps the conclusion by addressing a possible causal weakness.

Good job understanding the conditional/causal relationship posited here: Bees' vision led to flowers' colors and not vice versa.

The difficulty arises when we consider the variety of possible causal issues. There are many different aspects of causality that we might address to strengthen this conclusion.

To prephrase, you might start my running through some possible causal issues. For example:

• Bees are the only insects that have vision suited to identifying flowers by their color. This would be a problem because we'd wonder what caused the bees to develop this vision.
• Evidence of insects having vision suited to identifying flowers by their color only appears after flowers have developed these colors. This would be a problem because the events would be out of order.
• Flowers that don't rely on bees for pollination also have have elaborate colors suited to bee vision. Here we have the effect without the cause.

To strengthen the reasoning, you might address any of these possible causal weaknesses. This is what happens in answer choice (A). Consider the position that the author argues against: "Bee vision developed in response to flowers." The statement in answer choice (A) directly attacks this possibility by showing it is highly unlikely that other insects with similar vision developed such vision in response to external stimuli, like flowers. Instead, these insects have bee-like vision without any external cause or need for it. By attacking the possibility that "bee vision developed in response to flowers," answer choice (A) bolsters the possibility that "flower color developed in response to bees."

You are correct in your analysis that (B) requires too many additional assumptions and is too nebulous to provide much support for the conclusion.

I hope this helps!

[JulesC]

Hello,

For this question I got the right answer but I have a concern regarding answer choice E. This answer could weaken the conclusion by supporting reverse causality, but couldn't it also support the causality the author is assuming (flower color evolved as a result of bee's)? Because if the bees only food is flowers, that could mean that the flowers evolved so well that the bees primarily eat those instead of any others. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Jules

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Jules!

As you've observed, answer choice (E) doesn't tell us anything about the direction of the causal relationship. So it actually doesn't weaken OR strengthen the argument because it doesn't help us determine whether bees got really good at identifying flowers or whether flowers got really good at attracting bees.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey