Entomologist: Beginning around 2006, many honeybee colonies started dying mysteriously, a condition known as colony collapse disorder. Bee autopsies r...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Entomologist: Beginning around 2006, many honeybee colonies started dying mysteriously, a condition known as colony collapse disorder. Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony. Thus, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder.
In order to assess the strength of the entomologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Beginning around 2006, many honeybee colonies started dying mysteriously, a condition known as colony collapse disorder. |
|
| Bee autopsies revealed a virus called IAPV in almost all colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder, but in only one apparently healthy colony. |
|
| Thus, IAPV must be the cause of the disorder. |
|
Argument Flow:
The entomologist starts by describing a mysterious problem (colony collapse disorder), then presents evidence showing a strong correlation between a virus and the disorder, and finally concludes that this correlation proves causation.
Main Conclusion:
IAPV virus must be the cause of colony collapse disorder.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses correlation as evidence for causation: since IAPV appears in almost all sick colonies but rarely in healthy ones, the entomologist concludes IAPV must cause the disorder. This is a classic correlation-to-causation logical structure.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find information that would help us assess whether the entomologist's conclusion (that IAPV causes colony collapse disorder) is strong or weak
Precision of Claims
The entomologist makes a definitive causal claim ('IAPV must be the cause') based on correlation evidence (IAPV found in almost all sick colonies but only one healthy colony)
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to think of assumptions the argument makes, then create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken the conclusion when we get more information. The key gap here is jumping from correlation (IAPV present in sick colonies, absent in healthy ones) to causation (IAPV causes the disorder). We should think about what additional information would help us evaluate whether this correlation actually proves causation.
Whether the apparently healthy colony infected with IAPV was also infected with any other viruses: This doesn't help us evaluate the main causal claim. Knowing about other viruses in one healthy colony doesn't tell us whether IAPV causes colony collapse disorder. The focus should be on the relationship between IAPV and the disorder across all colonies, not additional details about a single healthy colony.
By what means IAPV has been spreading between honeybee colonies since 2006: This information about transmission methods doesn't help us determine whether IAPV actually causes the disorder. We could know exactly how IAPV spreads but still not know if it's the cause of colony collapse or just coincidentally present. The mechanism of spread is separate from establishing causation.
To what extent symptoms associated with colony collapse disorder make honeybee colonies more susceptible to infection by IAPV: This directly addresses the core weakness in the argument - the assumption that correlation proves causation. If colonies with collapse symptoms become more susceptible to IAPV infection, this would suggest reverse causation (the disorder makes colonies vulnerable to IAPV, rather than IAPV causing the disorder). If symptoms don't increase IAPV susceptibility, this strengthens the argument that IAPV is the cause. This information would definitively help assess whether the entomologist's causal conclusion is strong or weak.
Whether scientists are able to detect IAPV in honeybee colonies with symptoms of colony collapse disorder without conducting bee autopsies: This is about detection methods, not causation. Whether we can detect IAPV without autopsies doesn't change the relationship between IAPV and the disorder. The method of detection doesn't help us evaluate if IAPV actually causes colony collapse.
Which symptoms of colony collapse disorder were observed among the colonies in which IAPV was detected: This provides descriptive details about symptoms but doesn't help evaluate the causal relationship. Knowing which specific symptoms appeared doesn't tell us whether IAPV caused those symptoms or was just present coincidentally. We need information about the causal relationship, not symptom descriptions.