This question follows a typical patter that assumes since all things of a certain type share a characteristic that all things with that characteristic are of the certain type.
To take it out of the subject at hand consider the argument. All children wear shoes. The person I am talking to is wearing shoes, so she must be a child.
in this context the argument is clearly lacking because we understand that lots of people, not just children, wear shoes. The argument is doing the same with orchids but that subject is less familiar to us.
it is saying all orchids that are insect pollinated have features that attract insects. This orchid has a feature that attracts insects, therefore it must be insect pollinated. I hope the above analogy helps you to understand this type of reasoning.
To take it out of the subject at hand consider the argument. All children wear shoes. The person I am talking to is wearing shoes, so she must be a child.
in this context the argument is clearly lacking because we understand that lots of people, not just children, wear shoes. The argument is doing the same with orchids but that subject is less familiar to us.
it is saying all orchids that are insect pollinated have features that attract insects. This orchid has a feature that attracts insects, therefore it must be insect pollinated. I hope the above analogy helps you to understand this type of reasoning.