Analogy (part to whole, specific term): FROND is to PALM as which pair shows the same relationship?
Logical Reasoning
Analogies
Difficulty: Easy
Choose an option
-
Aquill : porcupine
-
Bblade : evergreen
-
Cscale : wallaby
-
Dtusk : alligator
-
Eblade : fern
Answer
Correct Answer: quill : porcupine
Explanation
Introduction / Context:This analogy focuses on a part-to-whole biological relationship. A frond is the characteristic leaf of a palm (and ferns). We must pick the pair where the first word is a distinctive anatomical part of the organism named second.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Base: frond → palm (distinctive leaf → plant).
- Correct option: specific body part → animal that characteristically has that part.
- Pairs that are inaccurate biologically or that invert the relationship should be rejected.
Concept / Approach:Check biological correctness and specificity. “Quill : porcupine” fits as quills are the famous spines of a porcupine. Other options name either the wrong organism or a part that does not belong to that organism.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Confirm base: frond belongs to a palm.Assess “quill : porcupine” — correct, iconic body part.“blade : evergreen” — evergreens typically have needles or scales, not grass-like blades.“scale : wallaby” — wallabies are mammals with fur, not scales.“tusk : alligator” — alligators have teeth, not mammalian tusks.“blade : fern” — while “blade” can name a leaf’s flat part, “fern” characteristically has fronds; less precise than the porcupine example.Verification / Alternative check:
Both “frond : palm” and “quill : porcupine” evoke hallmark parts of the whole organism; the mapping is parallel.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either mismatch the anatomy to the organism or are less characteristic/precise than the correct choice.Common Pitfalls:
Accepting any plausible-sounding biology without verifying whether that organism actually has the named part.Final Answer:quill : porcupine