CR-Type-additional Info

It looks like you missed the answer choices. I believe this is the Magoosh question you were meaning to post:

The National Farm Administration (NFA) has been concerned over the last decade with the struggles of barley growers.

Plan: In an effort to support these barley growers, two years ago, the NFA began a program of sending them, each autumn, a free special mix of fertilizer and enzymes designed to multiply barley yield, to be applied the following spring during first growth. This mix had been stunningly successful in multiplying the yield of barley in laboratory conditions.

Results: Most barley growers reported little change in their economic status over this two year period.

Further information: All barley growers received the shipments, and all used them. Weather conditions have been fair to optimal for barley growth over the past two years.

In light of the further information, which of the following, if true, does most to explain the result that followed the implementation of the plan?

(A) During these two years, most of the barley growers reported using no other fertilizer besides the special mix sent by the government.

(B) The trucks that drove the special mix from the depot in Wisconsin to the individual farms sometime took as much as 4 or 5 days.

(C) Some of the enzymes in the special mix multiply the growth of a bacteria that feeds on the young barley plants.

(D) This program was implemented at a time when more than half of barley growers nationwide were reported barely breaking even in their yearly expenses.

(E) This was the second such NFA program to aid barley growers; the first one, 14 years ago, was started with high hopes, but did little to change their situation.

--

This is Magoosh's explanation:

The scenario presents us with a paradox. Both the plan and the further information seem to suggest reasons that the barley crop would have taken off, giving tremendous economic benefit to the barley growers, but the "results" section tells us this didn't happen. We need some further piece of information that would explain why, despite all the apparently favorable conditions, the barley didn't grow.

(C) is the credited answer. If the material added to the barley fields included an enzyme that multiplied the growth of a bacteria that fed on the barley, that would explain how something involved in the plan itself had the counteractive effect of inhibiting the success of the barley plants, which in turn would explain why the barley didn't grow and why the barley growers were no better off as a result of this plan.

What was your question?