Critical Reasoning

Scientists have made genetic modifications to cotton to increase its resistance to insect pests. According to farmers’ reports, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not. Therefore, since the modified seed costs more than ordinary seed without
producing yields of higher market value, switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

A. Whether farmers who tried the modified cotton seed had ever tried growing other crops from genetically modified seed
B. Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops
C. Whether for most farmers who grow cotton it is their primary crop
D. Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did
E. Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide

Is it D?

In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness,it's important to know if the no. of acres used for farming is the same in both cases....what is the answer ?

A is out of scope because it talks about 'growing other crops'
B is again out of scope since it talks about 'other crops'. Whether the insecticide is more/less expensive than the one used on other crops is irrelevant
C Whether cotton is a primary crop is irrelevant
D Number of acres does not affect the argument since according to the passage, insecticide 'per acre' was slightly lower.
E CORRECT
Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide is important to know because if the farmers were using a lot more insecticide before the genetic seed, then it would definitely benefit the farmers. The arguments states "modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically."

A - out of scope
B - Talks about cost. Possible reason to explore if this is economically
viable. cost * diff in qty can lead to greater savings if cost is high.
C - Does not really help
D - Amount per acre is not substantially different. So, large area vs
small area does not help a whole lot
E - Cannot directly conclude on economic viability. The price
difference between the (new qty + genetically modified seeds) and
the old qty of insecticide can be either greater or lesser.

Tough call between B and E but given the above, I'll go with B

E
what's the OA

I agree with jayhawk2001
I go with B

OA please?

Why not consider D?

Expense on insectcide is not much different. But cost of seeds is much higher for GM cotton compared to ordinary cotton. So, the only differentiater is the cost of seeds. Higher cost of seeds can be offset by higher yield.

The argument says it did not produce yield of higher value but that could be because farmers using GM seeds did not plant as many acres as ordinary cotton, which D addresses.

sankruth wrote:Why not consider D?

Expense on insectcide is not much different. But cost of seeds is much higher for GM cotton compared to ordinary cotton. So, the only differentiater is the cost of seeds. Higher cost of seeds can be offset by higher yield.

The argument says it did not produce yield of higher value but that could be because farmers using GM seeds did not plant as many acres as ordinary cotton, which D addresses.

"since the modified seed costs more than ordinary seed without producing yields of higher market value"

That is the important statement with regard to your question. This statement is a premise as shown by the 'since' keyword used at the beginning. Since it is a premise we must accept the truth of this statement at face value. Now consider how this statement is phrased - it is stated in such a way that the reader must assume that the quantities/costs/etc. being compared have already been taken into consideration. No matter what statements you can think of to attack this question, you must assume it is true because it is evidence not the conclusion. Thus if you accept that this statement is true, then knowing point D provides absolutely nothing to your knowledge.

In fact, the author argues that "switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically" so in order to evaluate his argument, you must find something that weighs in economically. The author already stated modified seeds have no greater value so they have no economic impact thus we must look for something else to have economic impact: insecticide.

Hope that helps.

I Will go with B

OA please.

Suggest me if iam wrong

I Will go with B

OA please.

Suggest me if iam wrong

I'd say B but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic.