amanne 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?

Can somebody explain why conclusion to this argument is "Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer." and not " the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread." ?

I would assume the later occurs logically after the statement that the farmers will not save money using the new seeds.

Thanks,
Anvesh

Well, either one can be seen as a conclusion in its own sphere. The conclusion about no net cost savings for the farmer is used as a counterpoint example for the ultimate conclusion at the end of the passage.

Can anyone explain the answer for this question?

Hi

So this is a tricky one - esp. without the answer choices .

But it's definitely not the wrong conclusion, albeit a surprising one.

Basically, insect resistant crops are really expensive, and for most farmers,
planting resistant crops may not help them break even.

But...(and here's the important part)...consumers are increasingly demanding
insect resistant crops (i.e. the one's that don't use fertilizer) so more farmers
will plant these crops. The basic principle: the more demand rises, the more
farmers can charge and so the prohibitive cost of the insect resistant crops
is no longer a barrier to entry.

Of course, the argument doesn't elaborate that far - it is simply asking about
the bold-faced parts. As no answer choices were provided, I'll venture forth
my own correct answer:

(A) The first provides evidence against a certain course of action;
the second provides an additional factor that limits the impact of the
evidence


Hope that works