[Spoiler] Big Book Test 13 Section 5 Question 25

The passage suggests that the recent studies cited in lines 19-21 have not done which of the following?
(A) Made any distinctions between different species of wind-pollinated plants.
(B) Considered the physical properties of the pollen that is produced by wind-pollinated plants.
(C) Indicated the general range within which plant-generated airflow, disturbances are apt to occur.
(D) Included investigations of the physics of pollen motion and its relationship to the efficient capture of pollen by the female reproductive organs of wind-pollinated plants.
(E) Demonstrated that the morphological attributes of the female reproductive organs of wind-pollinated plants are usually evolutionary adaptations to wind pollination.

I don’t understand why (E) is the answer and not (A). I did watch Greg’s video explaining his reasons but I don’t agree with him.

The question is asking, of the answer choices below, which did the recent studies (in lines 19-21) NOT do? So we’re eliminating answer choices where the recent studies did do. Weirdly enough, Greg eliminated answer choices thinking that recent studies did not do them, when he should be eliminating them because the recent studies did do them. (Did I badly misinterpret the question?)

Let’s start with, “(B) Considered the physical properties of the pollen that is produced by wind-pollinated plants.” Here’s the evidence:

The speed and direction of the airflow disturbances can combine with the physical properties of a species’ pollen to produce a species-specific pattern of pollen collision on the surfaces of female reproductive organs.

For “(C) Indicated the general range within which plant-generated airflow, disturbances are apt to occur.” and “(D) Included investigations of the physics of pollen motion and its relationship to the efficient capture of pollen by the female reproductive organs of wind-pollinated plants.”, here’s my evidence:

These studies suggest that species frequently take advantage of the physics of pollen motion by generating specific aerodynamic environments within the immediate vicinity of their female reproductive organs.

For “(E) Demonstrated that the morphological attributes of the female reproductive organs of wind-pollinated plants are usually evolutionary adaptations to wind pollination”, I admit that the evidence is less strong.

… vicinity of their female reproductive organs. It is the morphology of these organs that dictates the pattern of airflow disturbances through which pollen must travel.

The studies definitely did not mention that there’s a connection between the shape of the female reproductive organs and evolutionary adaptions, but the whole passage was talking about a few features that helped wind-pollinated plants reduce pollen waste.

I re-read the entire passage a few times but I still did not see any evidence for “(A) Made any distinctions between different species of wind-pollinated plants.” Did I make a mistake somewhere?

E is correct. Evidence lies in lines 39 and 40

The passage can not have “Demonstrated that the morphological attributes of the female reproductive organs of wind-pollinated plants are usually evolutionary adaptations to wind pollination.”

When it says at lines 39 and 40 , that it remains impossible to do so.

A can not be correct for multiple reasons. Evidence lies within lines 42 onwards.

There are distinctions made between species. An example is given towards this, regarding the “ovule bearing like cones”

It’s not obvious to me that evidences in lines 39-40 and lines 42 onward refer to the same recent studies in lines 19-21 that the question referred to. How do you know that?

The author could be giving their observation or opinion in lines 39-40, and they could be referring to a different set of evidences not related to the same studies in lines 42 onward.

And thanks for the response!

To confirm this, can you identify where the author stops referring to the studies, and provide evidence to support this.

My answer;

The studies are said to examine a relationship between female reproductive organs and pollen motion.

From the point where that is introduced, from line 25 onwards, the topic remains unchanged. The tone remains unchanged.

There might be a paragraph at line 35, but the author continues to speak about the same topic

“A critical question that remains to be answered” by?

  • The studies

We’re still referring the studies

Hmm I guess my “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” point of view did not work here.

And I see how your argument is stronger. If the author doesn’t change the topic and if the author doesn’t reference a different study or evidence, we can assume that the author still references the same study despite it being a distance or a paragraph away.

There should be a “rant/bitch about ETS” channel/thread somewhere in this forum for cases like this.

Thanks again!