Several ancient Greek texts provide accounts of people being poisoned by honey that texts suggest was made from the nectar...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Several ancient Greek texts provide accounts of people being poisoned by honey that texts suggest was made from the nectar of rhododendron or oleander plants. Honey made from such nectar can cause the effects the texts describe, but only if eaten fresh, since the honey loses its toxicity within a few weeks of being made. In Greece, rhododendrons and oleander bloom only in springtime, when they are the predominant sources of nectar.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly support the accounts of Greek texts?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Several ancient Greek texts provide accounts of people being poisoned by honey that texts suggest was made from the nectar of rhododendron or oleander plants. |
|
| Honey made from such nectar can cause the effects the texts describe, but only if eaten fresh, since the honey loses its toxicity within a few weeks of being made. |
|
| In Greece, rhododendrons and oleander bloom only in springtime, when they are the predominant sources of nectar. |
|
Argument Flow:
The passage doesn't actually make a conclusion - it just presents facts that could support the Greek texts. We get the historical claims, then scientific evidence that such poisoning is possible, then information about when and where it would happen.
Main Conclusion:
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's setting up evidence that could potentially support the reliability of ancient Greek honey poisoning accounts.
Logical Structure:
This is an evidence-building structure rather than a complete argument. The passage provides: Historical claim → Scientific confirmation → Geographic/seasonal context. Each piece of evidence makes the Greek accounts more plausible by showing the poisoning was scientifically possible and would have occurred at predictable times and places.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the ancient Greek accounts of honey poisoning more believable and credible
Precision of Claims
The key claims involve timing (honey loses toxicity after a few weeks), seasonality (rhododendrons/oleander bloom only in spring), and causation (these plants cause the described poisoning effects)
Strategy
To strengthen the accounts, we need evidence that connects the historical descriptions to the scientific facts we know. The accounts would be more credible if we can show that the poisoning incidents described in the texts align with when toxic honey would actually be available and consumed fresh in ancient Greece
This tells us about nectar production volume but doesn't help verify the poisoning accounts. Even if rhododendrons and oleander produce the most nectar, this doesn't connect to whether the historical poisoning incidents actually happened or occurred at the right times to support the scientific explanation.
This is too broad and doesn't strengthen the specific Greek accounts. The passage is about supporting ancient Greek texts, not making universal claims about honey toxicity worldwide. Even if true, this doesn't help verify that the particular incidents described in ancient Greece actually occurred.
This addresses honey composition within hives but doesn't relate to timing or the credibility of the ancient accounts. Whether honey sections are uniform doesn't help us determine if the reported poisoning incidents actually happened when toxic honey would have been available.
This perfectly strengthens the accounts by providing crucial timing evidence. Since toxic honey loses its potency after a few weeks and the poisonous plants bloom only in spring, fresh toxic honey would only be available in spring through early summer. If the ancient texts describe incidents occurring exactly during this timeframe, it strongly suggests these were real events rather than fictional accounts, since the timing aligns perfectly with when such poisoning would actually be possible.
This discusses what determines honey toxicity but doesn't provide evidence about the timing or credibility of the specific ancient accounts. While it confirms the source-toxicity relationship, it doesn't help verify whether the historical incidents described in the Greek texts actually occurred during the appropriate timeframe.