BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

According to a prediction of the not-so-distant

Expert replies
by vinni.k » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:07 am
According to a prediction of the not-so-distant future published in 1940, electricity would revolutionize agriculture. Electrodes would be inserted into the soil, and the current between them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction above is flawed?

(A) In order for farmers to avoid electric shock while working in the fields, the current could be turned off at such times without diminishing the intended effects.

(B) If the proposed plan for using electricity were put into practice, farmers would save on chemicals now being added to the soil.

(C) It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial.

(D) Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way as it would affect crop plants.

(E) Because a planting machine would need to avoid coming into contact with the electrodes, new parts for planting machines would need to be designed.

Answer is D. I also believe that it is the best answer. But what about C. Doesn't it cast enough doubt. "It cannot be taken for granted" what one mean by this ? This also looks like a weakener to me. Can any one please elaborate more on this. I got it correct but want to know how can this choice be eliminated.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by rijul007 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:46 am
Answer choice C is too vague
Join the discussion

by ankita1709 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:23 am
Its already given in the question that 'electricity would revolutionize agriculture. Electrodes would be inserted into the soil, and the current between them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger', so this is something you can't cast your doubt upon. Hence, C can be eliminated
Join the discussion

by shantanu86 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:59 pm
vinni.k wrote:According to a prediction of the not-so-distant future published in 1940, electricity would revolutionize agriculture. Electrodes would be inserted into the soil, and the current between them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction above is flawed?

(A) In order for farmers to avoid electric shock while working in the fields, the current could be turned off at such times without diminishing the intended effects.

(B) If the proposed plan for using electricity were put into practice, farmers would save on chemicals now being added to the soil.

(C) It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial.

(D) Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way as it would affect crop plants.

(E) Because a planting machine would need to avoid coming into contact with the electrodes, new parts for planting machines would need to be designed.

Answer is D. I also believe that it is the best answer. But what about C. Doesn't it cast enough doubt. "It cannot be taken for granted" what one mean by this ? This also looks like a weakener to me. Can any one please elaborate more on this. I got it correct but want to know how can this choice be eliminated.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni
Hi Vinni,

The construction of question can be broken as-

Conclusion-
Electricity will revolutionize agriculture.

Reason-
Electricity will kill weeds and bugs that hamper crop.

[C] casts most serious doubts on reason by revealing that if electricity were to impact weeds and crops similarity the noted benefit will be lost.

[D] is a generalization.. a little too vague to cast any doubts over reason.

Hence, [C] should be preferred over [D].

Also, keep in mind the classical ways of weakening an argument is either by-
1.) weakening the reason itself
2.) or, by decoupling reason from conclusion.. so that it no longer stands as testimony of it.

Regards,
Shantanu
Join the discussion

by agarwalmanoj2000 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:55 pm
Hi Vinni,

Prediction: Electricity would revolutionize agriculture.

Why not C -
(C) It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial.
Option C talks only about electricity and nothing about its relation with agriculture. This option says that electricity may or may not be beneficial to agriculture, so this option neither strengthen nor weaken the prediction.

Why D -
(D) Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way as it would affect crop plants.
Option D says that electricity will kill both plants and weeds. It will harm the agriculture, so option D clearly weakens the prediction.

HTH.
Join the discussion

by spartacus1412 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:25 pm
It would go with D.

Option C doesnot relate the use of electricity with agriculture.
It just says tht electricity is not always beneficial which is to generalized.

Option D directly hits the nail by saying that electricity can harm the crop plants in a similar way as it is going to harm the weeds because weeds are also plants.

hence, the assumption that electricity will revolutionize agriculture is flawed.
Its do or die this time!
Practise, practise and practise.
Join the discussion