SpeciesBare groundPatches of vegetationTotalPercent found in patches of vegetationT. moroderi9132259.1%T. libanitis8312020359.1%H. syriacim9510620152....
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
| Species | Bare ground | Patches of vegetation | Total | Percent found in patches of vegetation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. moroderi | 9 | 13 | 22 | \(59.1\%\) |
| T. libanitis | 83 | 120 | 203 | \(59.1\%\) |
| H. syriacim | 95 | 106 | 201 | \(52.7\%\) |
| H. squamatum | 218 | 321 | 539 | \(59.6\%\) |
| H. stoechas | 11 | 12 | 23 | \(52.2\%\) |
Alicia Montesinos-Navarro, Isabelle Storer, and Rocío Perez-Barrales recently examined several plots within a diverse plant community in southeast Spain. The researchers calculated that if individual plants were randomly distributed on this particular landscape, only about \(15\%\) would be with other plants in patches of vegetation. They counted the number of juvenile plants of five species growing in patches of vegetation and the number growing alone on bare ground and compared those numbers to what would be expected if the plants were randomly distributed. Based on these results, they claim that plants of these species that grow in close proximity to other plants gain an advantage at an early developmental stage.
Which choice best describes data from the table that support the researchers' claim?
For all five species, less than 75% of juvenile plants were growing in patches of vegetation.
The species with the greatest number of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was H. stoechas.
For T. libanitis and T. moroderi, the percentage of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was less than what would be expected if plants were randomly distributed.
For each species, the percentage of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was substantially higher than what would be expected if plants were randomly distributed.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Alicia Montesinos-Navarro, Isabelle Storer, and Rocío Perez-Barrales recently examined several plots within a diverse plant community in southeast Spain." |
|
| "The researchers calculated that if individual plants were randomly distributed on this particular landscape, only about 15% would be with other plants in patches of vegetation." |
|
| "They counted the number of juvenile plants of five species growing in patches of vegetation and the number growing alone on bare ground and compared those numbers to what would be expected if the plants were randomly distributed." |
|
| "Based on these results, they claim that plants of these species that grow in close proximity to other plants gain an advantage at an early developmental stage." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Researchers claim that juvenile plants gain developmental advantages by growing near other plants rather than alone.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes a research team that first calculated what random plant distribution would look like (15% in patches), then conducted actual counts of five species to compare reality with this random expectation, leading to their claim about developmental advantages for plants growing in proximity to others.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which data from the table supports the researchers' claim about plants gaining advantages from proximity
What type of answer do we need? Specific evidence that backs up the claim that plants benefit from growing near other plants
Any limiting keywords? None specified
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The researchers' claim is that plants gain an advantage by growing near other plants
- To support this claim, we'd need data showing that plants are found in patches of vegetation more often than we'd expect if they were just randomly placed
- Since random distribution would put only 15% of plants in patches, the right answer should show that the actual percentages are much higher than 15% for these species
- Looking at the table, all five species show percentages well above 15%, ranging from about 52% to 60%
- This is roughly 3-4 times higher than the 15% random expectation
For all five species, less than 75% of juvenile plants were growing in patches of vegetation.
✗ Incorrect
- This focuses on what didn't happen (less than \(75\%\)) rather than the key comparison to the \(15\%\) random baseline
The species with the greatest number of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was H. stoechas.
✗ Incorrect
- This is factually wrong about which species had the most plants in patches, and even if correct, absolute numbers don't support the claim about advantage
For T. libanitis and T. moroderi, the percentage of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was less than what would be expected if plants were randomly distributed.
✗ Incorrect
- This is backwards - both species show \(59.1\%\), which is much higher than the \(15\%\) random expectation, not approximately equal to it
For each species, the percentage of juvenile plants growing in patches of vegetation was substantially higher than what would be expected if plants were randomly distributed.
✓ Correct
- Every species shows percentages substantially higher than \(15\%\): T. moroderi (\(59.1\%\)), T. libanitis (\(59.1\%\)), H. syriacim (\(52.7\%\)), H. squamatum (\(59.6\%\)), H. stoechas (\(52.2\%\))
- This directly supports the claim that plants gain advantages from proximity