A study question with an unexpected result tests whether you can explain what the groups showed. Name each group and its results, paying attention to both what changed and what stayed the same. Then ask how a later observation might help explain the surprise, and predict the smallest conclusion it supports. A possible explanation isn't a proven cause, so separate what researchers observed from what they infer. Wrong choices often sound reasonable but add a claim the study never tested.
Hints
- Hint 1
Compare the two plots on both measures: moth visits and seed production. Which measure changed, and which stayed about the same?
- Hint 2
Look at the observation added after the seed results. What did the researchers see in each plot?
- Hint 3
Ask how the added observation could explain the seed count. What can the researchers infer from those visits without claiming more than they observed?
Step-by-step
Explain the steady seed count
Step 1Set out the puzzle
The lit flowers received 62 percent fewer visits from moths yet produced about the same number of seeds. What must the blank explain? The conclusion has to account for both results, because a drop in moth visits didn't bring a similar drop in seeds. The puzzle is steady seed production despite fewer moth visits.
- Step 2
Use the added observation
What else differed between the plots? Beetles were rarely seen at the dark plot but foraged frequently on the illuminated flowers. Those extra visitors may have helped pollinate the lit flowers when moth visits fell. More beetle activity offers a possible reason for the steady seed production. Let's avoid claiming too much: the text reports beetle foraging, so this is a possible link rather than direct proof of beetle pollination.
- Step 3
Limit what the study can show
The researchers monitored two plots of the same alpine flower species. Does that support beetles as primary pollinators in all conditions? That goes too far beyond two plots. Crowding moths out also goes past the text because no crowding was reported. More beetles and fewer moths together don't prove that beetles caused the moth decline.
- Step 4
Distinguish moth visits from all visits
Now distinguish visits from moths from visits by all pollinators. Far fewer pollinator visits assumes the moth decline describes all visits, even though beetles visited frequently. Compensate means to make up for a loss, which links the extra beetle activity to about the same number of seeds. The word can allows that explanation without claiming it always happens. Choice C.