PrepTest 80, Section 2, Question 10
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record has proved to be no easy task. For centuries, botanists have been collecting and naming plants without realizing that many were in fact already named. And by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record has proved to be no easy task. For centuries, botanists have been collecting and naming plants without realizing that many were in fact already named. And by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record has proved to be no easy task. For centuries, botanists have been collecting and naming plants without realizing that many were in fact already named. And by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Creating a database of all the plant species in the scientific record has proved to be no easy task. For centuries, botanists have been collecting and naming plants without realizing that many were in fact already named. And by using DNA analysis, botanists have shown that varieties of plants long thought to belong to the same species actually belong to different species.
Of the following claims, which one can most justifiably be rejected on the basis of the statements above?
Most of the duplicates and omissions among plant names in the scientific record have yet to be cleared up.
An accurate database of all the plant species in the scientific record can serve as an aid to botanists in their work.
Duplicates and omissions in the scientific record also occur in fields other than botany.
Botanists have no techniques for determining whether distinct plant species have been given distinct names.
A person who consults the scientific record looking under only one of a plant's names may miss available information about that plant.
Explanations
Cool—we're learning fun facts about botany databases, here. What did we learn?
(1) It's been tough to create a database of all known plant species.
(2) Botanists have been collecting and naming plants for centuries, occasionally naming plants that have previously been named.
(3) Using DNA analysis, we've been able to differentiate between plant species previously thought to be the same species.
Got it.
Turns out to be a Must Be False question. Wrong answers will be consistent with or unaffected by these facts. Instead, we need an answer choice we could reject based on this information.
Let's see.
Wrong. I don't know, really. It's reasonable to believe that at least some of them have yet to be cleared up. And it's possible that virtually all of them have yet to be cleared up. I can't really make a determination based on the information provided, so I can't pick this answer choice.
Wrong again. I'm sure this would be helpful to botanists, hence why they want it in the first place. But nothing I was told outright rejects this idea, so I can't pick it.
Nope. Like B, I'm sure duplicates and omissions happen in all sorts of scientific fields. But nothing in the passage allows me to weigh in on this answer choice. Didn't read? Don't pick!
Bingo. Yes, we can reject this idea, so it's going to be the answer. Here's how: If we didn't have techniques for determining unique names, how would we come to "[realize] that many were in fact already named"? We'd have to have at least one method for identifying species names to come to such a realization.
Nah, this is totally consistent with the record. This is the very essence of why the database has been tricky to build.
0 Comments