Farm animals have certain behavorial tendencies that result from the evolutionary history of these species. By imposing on these animals a type of organization that conflicts with their behavorial tendencies,current farm management practices cause the animals more pain and distress than do practices that more closely conform to the animals behavorial tendencies. Because the animals tend to resist this type of organization, current practices can also be less efficient than those other farm management practices.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred from them?

A. Some of the behavorial tendencies of farm animals can be altered by efficient farm management practices

B. In order to implement efficient farm management practices,it is necessary to be familiar wit the evolutionary history of farm animals.

C. In order to create farm management practices that cause less pain and distress to farm animals ,a significant loss of efficiency will be required.

D. Farm Management Practices that cause the least amount of pain and distress to farm animals are also the most efficient management practices.

E. Some changes in farm management practices that lessen the pain and distress experienced by farm animals can result in gains in efficiency.

Nope, inferences almost always have a "reserved" tone...they dont go all out...

and if you read the last part of the sentence in D, you will see "efficient management practices" ...now thats too much to infer..isnt it...

farm management practices and "management practices" are two different things..dont u think?

thanks
praetorian

B
_________________

Brainless

My answer - E.
A & B - too broad (need to stretch the argument to conclude them)
C & D - too strong (signifacant loses, most effecient...)
E - can be safely concluded without getting in any trouble/debate.

I choose E....and as i scrolled down and saw everyone touting B, i was a little disappointed...but i feel better knowing that it is E

i feel that B is just plain out of scope b/c the passage in no way mentions what benefits can be derived from being "familiar" with the evolutionary history of farm animals...basically there is no parallel to be drawn...if we decide to conclude something about being "familiar" with the evolutionary history of farm animals, then we would seriously be just pulling it out of our ass...which is not what we want to do...we want the passage to support the answer....whatever the answer will be has to have complete support from ALL the premises in the passage....A, B, C, & D fail to do this....

now looking at E:

after i read the passage, i could already tell what i was looking for in the answer...here's what the passage basically says: farm animals have certain tendencies, trying to alter their tendencies causes pain and distress which leads to inefficies b/c the animals try to resist these alterations (ie changes, restrictions)...here's the key: the passage finishes by saying b/c the animals tend to resist this type of organization-->these practices can also be less efficient than other practices....

right after i finished reading the passage i knew that i needed to find an answer is supported by only things mentioned or infered in the passage...anything that is not mentioned or inferred, is out of scope....

when you look at E: we can properly infer this from the passage b/c the last line basically states this.....practices that cause pain are inefficient b/c of the pain...so we can properly assume that lessening the pain would somewhat improve efficiency b/c the inefficiency is caused by the pain....

Probably any inference can be checked via its own negation. If such a negation destroys the argument, we pick a correct answer.

Negate E: No changes in farm management practices that lessen the pain and distress experienced by farm animals can result in gains in efficiency.

It destroys the gist of the passage: Other farm management practices can be more efficient than current practices.