Question 23·Medium·Inferences
To encourage pollinators, a city offered residents free packets of native wildflower seeds. The next spring, ecologists recorded modest gains in bee diversity in districts with the highest participation. Those same districts had adopted a pilot pesticide-reduction policy the previous year, a policy not in effect elsewhere. Because low-participation districts lacked both widespread planting and the pilot policy, the ecologists cautioned that the gains could not be attributed solely to the seed giveaway, though they recommended continuing it.
Which inference is best supported by the passage?
For SAT inference questions, base your answer only on what is clearly stated or strongly implied, not on outside knowledge or wild guesses. First, paraphrase the key facts and pay special attention to contrast words and qualifying phrases like "not solely," "however," or "though." Then ask, "What must be true or is very likely true given these facts?" Finally, eliminate any choices that (1) contradict the passage, (2) add new information the passage never mentions (like past conditions or future intentions), or (3) exaggerate the claims (turning "modest gains" into complete success everywhere). The remaining choice that stays closest to the text is almost always correct.
Hints
Locate the key contrast
Compare what is said about high-participation districts versus low-participation districts. What important difference, besides the seed planting itself, is mentioned?
Interpret the phrase about cause
Reread the sentence that says the gains "could not be attributed solely to the seed giveaway." What does this tell you about whether the seed packets are the only explanation for the gains?
Check for contradictions or extra assumptions
Look for answer choices that say things the passage never states (for example, about future plans or past bee populations) or that go against what the ecologists actually did or concluded.
Step-by-step Explanation
Summarize what happened in each type of district
First, restate the situation in simple terms:
- The city gave out free native wildflower seeds.
- The next spring, ecologists saw modest gains in bee diversity only in districts with the highest participation in planting.
- Those same high-participation districts also had a pilot pesticide-reduction policy that other districts did not have.
- Low-participation districts had neither widespread planting nor the pesticide-reduction policy, and they did not show the same gains.
Focus on the ecologists’ caution
Look closely at the key sentence: "the ecologists cautioned that the gains could not be attributed solely to the seed giveaway."
- "Not ... solely" means the seed giveaway by itself cannot fully explain the gains.
- This implies that some additional factor must also be contributing.
- The passage then still says they recommended continuing the seed giveaway, so they do not see it as useless; they just think it is not the only cause.
Identify the other major factor mentioned
Now ask: what else changed in the districts that showed gains?
- The passage tells us that in those same districts "had adopted a pilot pesticide-reduction policy the previous year, a policy not in effect elsewhere."
- So, compared with low-participation districts, the high-participation districts had two things: (1) more wildflower planting and (2) reduced pesticide use.
- Since the gains cannot be explained by the seed giveaway alone, the other policy is the most logical additional contributor.
Match the supported inference to the answer choices
We want the answer that reflects that the gains in bee diversity likely involved more than just the seed giveaway and that the other factor was the pesticide-reduction policy.
- One choice states that the pesticide-reduction policy likely contributed to the observed gains in bee diversity, which fits the passage’s logic exactly.
- The other choices either contradict the passage or add unsupported claims. Therefore, the best supported inference is: "The pesticide-reduction policy likely contributed to the observed gains in bee diversity."