Critical Reasoning

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

Hi Verbal Experts,
Could you please share your analysis to help me understand this ?

Would much appreciate your reply.

Thank you!

Hi Verbal Experts - could you please come up with your analysis and explanation for this CR Qs ?

Looking forward to your explanation.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

Hi Verbal Experts,
Could you please share your analysis to help me understand this ?

Would much appreciate your reply.

Thank you!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi Verbal Experts - could you please come up with your analysis and explanation for this CR Qs ?

Looking forward to your explanation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi I am no verbal expert, but here is my two cents on this question.

I've explained it deeply in the image below, please click it and hope this helps!



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In times of stress, Fashion is always outrageous

If my explanation helped you, please lemme know by clicking the 'thank' button!

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

The conclusion: Cotton is being destroyed by corn-bred bollworms.

The evidence: - Some cotton was bioengineered to have an insecticide against bollworms. This had been effective until this year.
- There was more corn than usual this year

Okay. We're trying to figure out why the bioengineered cotton is sustaining more bollworm damage this year. In essence there are two potential explanations.

Explanation 1: the cotton bollworms have become resistant to the bioengineered cotton's insecticide

Explanation 2: the bioengineered cotton is getting eaten by corn-bred bollworms.

The argument prefers explanation 2. If it's true that corn-bred bollworms are responsible for the additional cotton damage, we'd expect to see increased damage in every kind of cotton plant, because those dang corn-bred bollworms are running wild. We'd see more damage not only to the bioengineered cotton but to cotton that wasn't bioengineered.

But if explanation 1 were correct, and the bollworms had developed resistance to the insecticide, then we wouldn't expect any change in cotton that didn't have the insecticide. Why would it matter if bollworms had developed a resistance to an insecticide that the non-engineered cotton didn't have?

In essence, if non-engineered cotton experiences more damage, explanation 2 is likely correct, and the corn-bred bollworms are eating everything. But if non-engineered cotton continues to be damaged at the same rate, explanation 1 is likely correct.

This is what B gives us. If the non-engineered plants are experiencing more damage this year than last, then it's probably the corn-bred bollworms that are the culprit.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

The conclusion: Cotton is being destroyed by corn-bred bollworms.

The evidence: - Some cotton was bioengineered to have an insecticide against bollworms. This had been effective until this year.
- There was more corn than usual this year

Okay. We're trying to figure out why the bioengineered cotton is sustaining more bollworm damage this year. In essence there are two potential explanations.

Explanation 1: the cotton bollworms have become resistant to the bioengineered cotton's insecticide

Explanation 2: the bioengineered cotton is getting eaten by corn-bred bollworms.

The argument prefers explanation 2. If it's true that corn-bred bollworms are responsible for the additional cotton damage, we'd expect to see increased damage in every kind of cotton plant, because those dang corn-bred bollworms are running wild. We'd see more damage not only to the bioengineered cotton but to cotton that wasn't bioengineered.

But if explanation 1 were correct, and the bollworms had developed resistance to the insecticide, then we wouldn't expect any change in cotton that didn't have the insecticide. Why would it matter if bollworms had developed a resistance to an insecticide that the non-engineered cotton didn't have?

In essence, if non-engineered cotton experiences more damage, explanation 2 is likely correct, and the corn-bred bollworms are eating everything. But if non-engineered cotton continues to be damaged at the same rate, explanation 1 is likely correct.

This is what B gives us. If the non-engineered plants are experiencing more damage this year than last, then it's probably the corn-bred bollworms that are the culprit.

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the reply. I did get this correct but took more than 3 minutes to solve it...So, can you please shed some light how to do solve such CR qs faster ?

Also, as the ARGUMENT explicitly mentions that Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide, hence I guess EXPLANATION 1 in your analysis shouldn't hold good at face value. Correct me please if wrong!

Thanks for the reply. I did get this correct but took more than 3 minutes to solve it...So, can you please shed some light how to do solve such CR qs faster ?

I would only worry about doing these questions faster if you find that your general verbal timing on practice tests is very problematic. In my experience, students are often moving too quickly through problems and missing subtleties in the language. If it takes you 3 minutes to do a harder CR, and then you do an easier one in 1 minute, you're back on pace. And as with anything else in life, the more of these you do, the better you'll become at recognizing certain kinds of patterns, and the faster you'll do them.

Also, as the ARGUMENT explicitly mentions that Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide, hence I guess EXPLANATION 1 in your analysis shouldn't hold good at face value. Correct me please if wrong!

Well, any claim with the qualifier "not necessarily" is a pretty soft one. It just means that there's a less than 100% probability of an event happening. The sun is not necessarily going to rise tomorrow. It may explode today. So when the argument says that explanation 1 isn't necessarily true, it just means that we cannot definitively conclude that bollworms have developed resistance to the pesticides. And this makes sense, because the argument arrives at a different conclusion! Our job is to determine what information would help us decide if that conclusion is valid.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote: So when the argument says that explanation 1 isn't necessarily true, it just means that we cannot definitively conclude that bollworms have developed resistance to the pesticides.

Exactly so...then I'm NOT able to get it why we would even consider explanation 1 in evaluating options ?

Exactly so...then I'm NOT able to get it why we would even consider explanation 1 in evaluating options ?

Just because we haven't ruled something out doesn't mean we don't have to consider it as a possibility. For instance, it's not necessarily true that Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for the 2016 election, but it's still quite likely, and something political pundits have to consider. It's not necessarily true that I will wake up tomorrow, but my wife isn't planning her day as though it's our last one together. Similarly, it isn't necessarily the case that bollworms have developed resistance to the pesticide, but it's still a possibility. In fact, if it were necessarily true, there's be no argument to evaluate!