Critical Reasoning

Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer vegetable seeds
to produce crops that are highly resistant to insect damage. Although
these seeds currently cost more than conventional seeds, their cost is
likely to decline. Moreover, farmers planting them can use far less pesticide,
and most consumers prefer vegetables grown with less pesticide,
therefore, for crops for which these seeds can be developed, their use
is likely to become the norm.
which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the
argument above?
A. Whether plant scientists have developed insect-resistant seeds
For every crop that is currently grown commercially
B. Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger
Amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.
C. Whether plants grown from the new genetically engineered seeds
Can be kept completely free of insect damage.
D. Whether seeds genetically engineered to produce insect-resistant
crops generate significantly lower per acre crop yields than do
currently used seeds.
E. Whether most varieties of crops currently grown commercially have
Greater natural resistance to insect damage than did similar varieties
in the past.

For me this question was very intimidating. Finally i found a very detailed explanation. Let me share it with y'all.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/plant-scientists-81357.html

In this kind of question you're looking for an answer choice that if is true strengthen/weakens the argument and that if is false has weakens/strengthen the argument.

Premise 1: Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer vegetable seeds
to produce crops that are highly resistant to insect damage

Premise 2: The seeds currently cost more than conventional seeds, their cost is
likely to decline

Premise 3: farmers planting them can use far less pesticide

Premise 4: most consumers prefer vegetables grown with less pesticide

Conclusion : their use is likely to become the norm

The author provides all the evidence to support that the use of the seeds will become a norm


A. Whether plant scientists have developed insect-resistant seeds for every crop that is currently grown commercially

If this is false nothing hampers that the seeds become the norm.
If this is true more seeds will become the norm.

A is out.

B. Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.

if this is true with the new seeds farmers will need to put less pesticides; the amount decreases
if this is false with the new seeds farmers will need to put less pesticides; the amount decreases even in a greater proportion.
The effect is the same so B is out.

C. Whether plants grown from the new genetically engineered seeds can be kept completely free of insect damage.

if this is true, this strengthens the argument
if this is false, we do not whether the current seeds are completely free of damage (in principle they are not) so no effect

D. Whether seeds genetically engineered to produce insect-resistant crops generate significantly lower per acre crop yields than do currently used seeds.

If this is true perhaps the farmers will want to continue use the current seeds because they produce greater crop per acre
if this is false the argument is strengthen because farmers will want to use the new seeds.

Correct. Two different effects

E. Whether most varieties of crops currently grown commercially have greater natural resistance to insect damage than did similar varieties
in the past.

This does not address the new seeds so is irrelevant.

IMO D

If the yield per acre is less than the new seeds will not be used.

What is OA.

One for D

P1. Plant Scientists able to develop High resistant crop.
P2. The seeds currently cost more than conventional seeds
P3. The cost is likely to decline.
P4. And they consume less pesticide.
P5. more customers prefer vegetables on less pesticides
CLN So for the plants for which these seeds can be developed, use likely to become norm.

Now we need to evaluate the argument, so in effect we need to evaluate the conclusion.

A- does not matter because already been addressed in the stimulus
B- Lesser is always preferred by the customers(stimulus), so does not matter whether greater than necessary or not.
C- The stimulus suggests highly resistant not free from insects, so does not evaluate.
D- This definitely evaluates because if they produce low yield then they are not likely to become a norm
E- Comparison between the present ones and the earlier ones is Not in the scope of the argument.

So my option D

Am really confused here between E and D please explian

Regards,
Phil

What is the OA? I was going for B, gulp

oa is D

please explian with reasons

Regards,
Phil

ssgmatter wrote:Am really confused here between E and D please explian

Regards,
Phil

E. Whether most varieties of crops currently grown commercially have
Greater natural resistance to insect damage than did similar varieties
in the past. The comparison is between normal seed varieties that are currently used and normal seed varieties used in the past. This comparison is irrelevant for this question.

Hope this helps!

Thanks.

ssgmatter wrote:Am really confused here between E and D please explian

Regards,
Phil

IMO D, as well.

remember that the scope here is narrower than given in E. E talks about most varieties of crops currently grown commercially

we're not concerned about them.

the conclusion is about genetically engineered vegetable seeds.

IMO : B
i don't know how it could be "D"

here the emphasis is on pesticide use and not on the yield.
B clearly shows that if farmers were using more pesticide then required previously then preferring new seeds for their less usage of seeds is not justified .
Thanx

Why can't 'E' be the answer? If the seeds currently grown have greater resistance to pesticides then there is not a need for genetically modified seeds.

I'm between B and D but would go with B for reasoning similar to that of rahulsaroha.

Focus on the focus.

B. Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger Amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.

Choice B is generic, it can be applied for genetically engineered seeds or the normal seeds. So i think its incorrect.

I think the assumption behind the argument is that the yield per acre is the same for genetically engineered seeds and normal seeds. Why would one want to sow genetically engineered seeds if they significantly produce a lower yield. That said, i had also thought that yield is not mentioned as a key point in the evidence, but I thought if I were in that position of buying a genetically engineered seed vs normal seed and someone would say that genetically engineered seed would produce a significant lower yield than normal one, i would definitely say a no to the earlier one.

Choice E talks about natural resistance, but the main argument talks about resistance to insect damage. natural resistance and resistance gained through genetic engineering are two different things, also even if some crops have more or less natural resistance to something doesn't affect the argument much(neither weaken/strengthen)

What's the official answer? Come on guys don't leave us hanging like this!

The correct answer is choice D.

For relevant information questions, you should figure out the assumption. Then, you should look for a choice where if it goes one way it will strengthen the argument, and if it goes the other way it it will weaken the argument. So, one way to approach this type of question is to treat it as a hybrid strengthen/weaken. Another way is to look for the choice that falls flatly within the scope of the argument.

The author argues that genetically engineered seeds will replace conventional seeds because they are highly resistant to insect damage, because their cost is likely to decline, and because they require less pesticides.

When figuring out the assumption, you should ask "what else must be true for the argument to work?"

What else must be true in order for the genetically engineered seeds to replace conventional ones?...well, they would have to deliver at least almost as much yield as the conventional ones. (If, they didn't, then it is unlikely that farmers will turn to them.)

Choice D matches this prediction. Let's apply the hybrid strengthen/weaken test to choice D:

What if the genetically engineered seeds generated significantly lower yield? Then, farmers are unlikely to turn to them, and the argument is weakened. And, what if genetically engineered seeds generated just as much yield as the conventional seeds? Then, farmers are more likely to turn to them (for all the reasons the author cites), and the argument is strengthened.

Let's consider choices B and E.

Choice B is irrelevant. If farmers right now are using more pesticides than are necessary, then they can simply use less pesticide; they don't have to turn to genetically engineered seeds.

Choice E offers an irrelevant comparison. Even if current crops are more insect-resistant than those used in the past, we still know from the passage that the genetically engineered seeds are far more insect-resistant than the ones being currently used. (Choice E would be wrong even if it said upcoming conventional seeds are more insect-resistant than current ones, because we still wouldn't know whether the upcoming ones are as insect-resistant as the genetically engineered ones).

As an aside, it shouldn't necessarily be surprising that the correct aswr brings up an idea (yield) that did not make an appearance in the stimulus. The right answe to a relevant infomation question is closely related to the assumption, and assumptions are always unstated.