IMO C

I believe that the conclusion is as follows:

Even though the overall cost of using the insect resistant seeds is more than the overall cost of using the non insect resistant seeds, the use of non insect resistant seeds is likely to become widespread owing to its high demand in the market.

Hence my answer is A.

By making the statement "Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones", the author sets up a context for the argument which is "Maybe the use of insect resistant seeds will not be feasible?", and the next bold face statement he in the main conclusion in which the author states that it is likely that the use of insect resistant seeds will be widespread.

IMO C

@atulmangal : can you please provide the OA..

Can anyone suggest how to solve bold faces questions, I always find them difficult.

+1 for C and regarding A

I think A is out because the second is not just a conclusion but a premise + conclusion.

+1 for C.

What is the OA?

OA is C

Here is the explanation by Ron & Stacey.

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pla ... t2270.html

Guys OA is C, my question is what do u think the final position of the author is ??

is it..." for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer."

OR

"the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. "

I think the conclusion is the latter one -the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

atulmangal wrote:my question is what do u think the final position of the author is ??

is it..." for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer."

OR

"the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. "

I read somewhere about internal and external conclusion. I think "the use of genetically..." is internal conclusion and "for most farmers the savings........" is external conclusion

I just don't know how to solve this problem.

Basically I used premise/conclusion strategy to solve this problem and ended up with answer A.

Since "the most critical thing in CR is to find the conclusion" , I think sentence 4 is the conclusion, it is like if you are going to state the trend "Apple computer is going to become popular", you would say:

Apple computer is very nice but expensive, so not so many people can afford it, but since people's earnings is increasing, apple computer is going to be very popular in the future.

Why is "not so many people can afford it", instead of "apple computer is going to be very popular in the future" the main conclusion, which is exactly the reason why the paragraph above was written?

In your post you said: the second boldface in this case is not really a claim; it's a logical consequence of the preceding fact, and so should be regarded as another fact; It sounds logical enough to say "the third sentence in this case is not really a claim, but a logical consequence of the preceding fact (boldface 1)"...

For choice (C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. - The first part is correct, the second part is not accurate, because the predication is that "savings on pesticides will not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer", yet the boldface 2 doesn't deny such predication by stating the savings will compensate the cost, it basically said "The usage is like to become widespread" - <because the high price or greater demand of the fruits (not the savings on pesticides) will compensate for the higher costs. >

For answer A, it sounds more closely tied with what is happening, boldface 1 is a pure fact, thus a context; the boldface 2 is the conclusion.

Please kindly comment on my thinking.

Thanks.

atulmangal wrote:Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.

What is the main conclusion of argument...any thoughts??

Fact 1: Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.

Fact 2: Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.

Conclusion: Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.

Counter-reasoning: However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

The problem with option A is that the second boldface is not the main conclusion of the argument. The key to cracking such questions is the ability to identify the premise, conclusion and counter-conclusions correctly.

Can anyone share POE for above problem. It will great...