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 presents a development that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages; the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages.
(B) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain impact; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(C) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion.
(D) The first is evidence provided to support an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in support of the argument's main conclusion; the second is that intermediate conclusion.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence in support of the argument's main conclusion.
Source: Question Pack 1.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to p
This topic has expert replies
-
alanforde800Maximus
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:46 am
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Option A: wrong
This statement in this option shows contrary to the mood of the writer who seeks to conclude in the first part the advantages and not the disadvantages of genetic engineering on plant and produce crops. In like manner, the second part is in negative term also as it does seek to buttress rather than offset any of the advantages.
Option B:correct
Here, the first part seeks to show cause why genetic engineering would have or make a positive impacts on produce from agriculture with the second part showing cause for the likelihood of the only negative to the plan which could dissuade users of the process.
Option C:wrong
It is true the first part seeks to summarize and give a lead to the argument but the second part here does not in any way conform with the arguments conclusion which in a way weakens the argument.
Option D:wrong
The statement is entirely wrong as it is contrary to what's written or inferred from the intermediate conclusion, a direct opposite so to say while the second part is truly speaking the mind of the writer in the intermediate conclusion.
Option E:wrong
Only the first part which is the introduction part supports this argument in this option. The second does not in any way refer to the cost implications of the seedlings.
This statement in this option shows contrary to the mood of the writer who seeks to conclude in the first part the advantages and not the disadvantages of genetic engineering on plant and produce crops. In like manner, the second part is in negative term also as it does seek to buttress rather than offset any of the advantages.
Option B:correct
Here, the first part seeks to show cause why genetic engineering would have or make a positive impacts on produce from agriculture with the second part showing cause for the likelihood of the only negative to the plan which could dissuade users of the process.
Option C:wrong
It is true the first part seeks to summarize and give a lead to the argument but the second part here does not in any way conform with the arguments conclusion which in a way weakens the argument.
Option D:wrong
The statement is entirely wrong as it is contrary to what's written or inferred from the intermediate conclusion, a direct opposite so to say while the second part is truly speaking the mind of the writer in the intermediate conclusion.
Option E:wrong
Only the first part which is the introduction part supports this argument in this option. The second does not in any way refer to the cost implications of the seedlings.
