After large numbers of honeybees in Zaronia were found dead, evidence pointed to the possibility that the bees were sickened...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
After large numbers of honeybees in Zaronia were found dead, evidence pointed to the possibility that the bees were sickened by the fungicide Voxper, which had recently been introduced into areas where many of the bees had hives. The government banned the use of Voxper, which was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban. But after three years, bee populations had not recovered and bees were still dying. It can be concluded that Voxper was not in fact the cause of the bees' death.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| After large numbers of honeybees in Zaronia were found dead, evidence pointed to the possibility that the bees were sickened by the fungicide Voxper, which had recently been introduced into areas where many of the bees had hives. |
|
| The government banned the use of Voxper, which was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban. |
|
| But after three years, bee populations had not recovered and bees were still dying. |
|
| It can be concluded that Voxper was not in fact the cause of the bees' death. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a problem (bee deaths) and suspected cause (Voxper). It then shows the test - removing Voxper completely for 3 years. When bees kept dying despite no Voxper, the author concludes Voxper wasn't the real cause.
Main Conclusion:
Voxper was not the cause of the bees' deaths in Zaronia.
Logical Structure:
The logic follows an elimination pattern: If Voxper caused bee deaths, then removing Voxper should stop bee deaths. Since removing Voxper didn't stop bee deaths, Voxper wasn't the cause. However, this assumes no other factors are at play - like Voxper having long-lasting effects or other causes being present.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Assumption - We need to find what the argument must assume to be true for the conclusion to hold. The argument concludes that Voxper wasn't the cause because bees kept dying even after Voxper was banned for 3 years.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about timing (3 years), complete absence of Voxper use, continued bee deaths, and lack of population recovery. The conclusion is absolute - Voxper was NOT the cause.
Strategy
For assumption questions, we need to identify what must be true for the logic to work. The argument's reasoning is: 'If Voxper caused the deaths, then removing Voxper should stop the deaths. Since deaths continued after removing Voxper, Voxper wasn't the cause.' We need to find what this logic assumes about timing, effects, and causation.
'Honeybees had lived in the affected areas of Zaronia for many years before Voxper was applied.' This tells us about the historical presence of bees in the area, but this information isn't necessary for the argument's conclusion. Whether bees lived there for many years or just arrived recently doesn't affect the logic about whether removing Voxper should stop the deaths. The argument works regardless of how long bees had been in those areas.
'Voxper was found to have adverse effects on insects other than honeybees.' This is about Voxper's effects on other insects, but the argument is specifically about whether Voxper caused the honeybee deaths. Information about other insects doesn't strengthen or weaken the logic that removing Voxper should stop honeybee deaths if it were the cause. This is irrelevant to the core reasoning.
'The environmental effects of Voxper are unlikely to have persisted for three years following its most recent use.' This is exactly what the argument must assume. The author concludes Voxper wasn't the cause because bees kept dying after 3 years without Voxper. But this logic only works if we assume Voxper's effects don't linger for years. If Voxper could have long-lasting environmental effects, then continued bee deaths wouldn't prove Voxper wasn't the original cause - the deaths could still be from Voxper's persistent effects.
'The government ban on Voxper was in force only in areas containing large concentrations of bees.' This actually weakens the argument rather than being an assumption it depends on. The passage states Voxper 'was no longer used in Zaronia during the three years following the ban,' suggesting a complete ban. If the ban were only in bee areas, Voxper could still be affecting bees from nearby unbanned areas.
'Honey and wax production was essentially unchanged in areas where Voxper was not applied.' This compares production levels in different areas, but the argument doesn't rely on any comparison between Voxper and non-Voxper areas. The logic is solely based on what happened after Voxper was removed from the affected areas, not on comparing different regions.