abhasjha wrote:Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with natural methods,
some well-managed farms are able to reduce the amounts of synthetic fertilizer
and pesticide and also of antibiotics they use without necessarily decreasing
yields; in some cases yields can be increased.

Critics: Not so. The farms the academy selected to study were the ones that seemed most likely to be successful in using natural methods. What about the farmers who have tried such methods and failed?

Which one of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the critics’ response?

(A) Success and failure in farming are rarely due only to luck, because farming is the management of chance occurrences.

(B) The critics show that the result of the study would have been different if twice
as many farms had been studied.
(C) The critics assume without justification that the failures were not due to soil
quality.
(D) The critics demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority
of framers.
(E) The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.

IMO [spoiler][D][/spoiler]

[A]- No information given above chance of occurences
- Studying the twice the similar type of farms that science acad. has done is not going to help change critic's response
[C]- No information about soil quality, instead talks about higher yeilds with natural methods
[E]- Irrelavant[/spoiler]

OA- E

Official explanation follows :

The claim derived from the study is simply that “some well-managed farms” have
successfully employed natural farming methods — in other words, that these methods can
be used with success. Since the conclusion isn’t that natural methods are generally more
successful, the critics’ objection that the study omitted unsuccessful farms is irrelevant.
(A) The critics don’t argue that successful farming is merely a matter of luck, so this isn’t a
relevant criticism of their response.
(B), like the critics, misinterprets the study’s results. Since the only result claimed is that
some — not most — farms successfully used natural methods, including twice as many
farms won’t change this.
(C) Irrelevant! The critics don’t address the reasons for the methods’ success or failure, so
they make no assumptions about the role of soil quality.
(D) Be careful! The critics object — irrelevantly — that natural methods aren’t necessarily
suitable for all farmers, but they don’t demonstrate that this is indeed true. To do so, they
would have to present new evidence in their response. Although they criticize the study’s
evidence, they don’t present any new evidence of their own.
• In dialogues, be sure to isolate the argument each person is making. Read the second
argument with respect to its relation to the first.
• Ordinarily, in dialogue-format questions, it’s the first speaker who makes the logical
error and the second speaker who makes a successful rebuttal. Here’s an exception
where it’s the responding comment that blows.

please tell us the source of this problem.. nice one

Answer A seems to be logical one out of other answer choices

E is the most suitable option