kvcpk wrote:

selango wrote:Yes question with same pattern.Also in OG question,one premise is there regarding yield from 2 crops.

Still I can't agree the OA D for this question.

HI Anand,

Conclusion of the argument is
for crops for which these seeds can be developed, their use is likely to become the norm.

If you observe closely, passage is drawing conclusion about usage of crops, based on the usage of seeds.

This is the flaw in the argument. We will need to find a statement which evaluates this gap.

Option D says that though the genetically engineered seeds are used, thier crop yield is much less than with other seeds.
If crop yield is less, then the crop cannot be used in greater amount when compared with other seeds.
Hence it is introducing a right statement to evaluate the argument.

Let us look at B.
Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger Amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.
This is not linking itself directly with the conclusion. Let us see what we can draw from B
If Yes,
Farmers use pesticides in larger amount: Let us say they spray x% more than normal usage.
for genetically engineered seeds: normal usage is 100.. Used as per B is 100+x
for other seeds: normal usage is already greater than 100(as it is given in the passage that farmers will use less pesticide)... Used as per B is 100+somevalue+x.
Hence more pesticides are used for other seeds than genetically engineered seeds.
So far so good... But will this gaurantee that the crop usage will be more? NO.. Because the passage doesnt say whether use of pesticides is the only factor that determines the crop usage.

If NO,
Farmers do not use pesticides in larger amount.
for genetically engineered seeds: normal usage is 100.. Used as per B is 100
for other seeds: normal usage is already greater than 100(as it is given in the passage that farmers will use less pesticide)... Used as per B is 100+somevalue
Hence more pesticides are used for other seeds than genetically engineered seeds.
Once again will this gaurantee that the crop usage will be more? NO.. Because the passage doesnt say whether use of pesticides is the only factor that determines the crop usage.

Hence B doesnt help in evaluating the argument to the full extent.

Let me know if u have any concerns..

kvcpk wrote:

selango wrote:Yes question with same pattern.Also in OG question,one premise is there regarding yield from 2 crops.

Still I can't agree the OA D for this question.

HI Anand,

Conclusion of the argument is
for crops for which these seeds can be developed, their use is likely to become the norm.

If you observe closely, passage is drawing conclusion about usage of crops, based on the usage of seeds.

This is the flaw in the argument. We will need to find a statement which evaluates this gap.

Option D says that though the genetically engineered seeds are used, thier crop yield is much less than with other seeds.
If crop yield is less, then the crop cannot be used in greater amount when compared with other seeds.
Hence it is introducing a right statement to evaluate the argument.

Let us look at B.
Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger Amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.
This is not linking itself directly with the conclusion. Let us see what we can draw from B
If Yes,
Farmers use pesticides in larger amount: Let us say they spray x% more than normal usage.
for genetically engineered seeds: normal usage is 100.. Used as per B is 100+x
for other seeds: normal usage is already greater than 100(as it is given in the passage that farmers will use less pesticide)... Used as per B is 100+somevalue+x.
Hence more pesticides are used for other seeds than genetically engineered seeds.
So far so good... But will this gaurantee that the crop usage will be more? NO.. Because the passage doesnt say whether use of pesticides is the only factor that determines the crop usage.

If NO,
Farmers do not use pesticides in larger amount.
for genetically engineered seeds: normal usage is 100.. Used as per B is 100
for other seeds: normal usage is already greater than 100(as it is given in the passage that farmers will use less pesticide)... Used as per B is 100+somevalue
Hence more pesticides are used for other seeds than genetically engineered seeds.
Once again will this gaurantee that the crop usage will be more? NO.. Because the passage doesnt say whether use of pesticides is the only factor that determines the crop usage.

Hence B doesnt help in evaluating the argument to the full extent.

Let me know if u have any concerns..

nikhilkatira wrote: Pravin thanks for the explanation..