VeritasKarishma wrote:
sondenso 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 againstthat prediction.
(D) The first provides a certain outcome that the agrument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
Responding to a pm:
What is the essence of the argument?
Genetically modified seeds are highly resistant to insects. But they are more expensive and need more fertilizer and water. So
farmers won't save money by using them (prediction).
But people like them so
their use will keep increasing (conclusion).
So what part is in bold? Let me underline it to show clearly...
Genetically modified seeds are highly resistant to insects. But
they are more expensive and need more fertilizer and water. So
farmers won't save money by using them (prediction).
But
people like them so [i]their use will keep increasing (conclusion)
(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
Wrong - second is not the 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.
Wrong - the second is not related to the outcome at all. It cannot accept or deny whether it is a 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.
Wrong - second is not a consideration against the prediction. Prediction is about saving money by using modified seeds. Just because people like modified seeds, farmers won't save money by using them i.e. the cost will not go down. Note that the revenue farmers earn may increase because people like these seeds but the cost of using them will not decrease.
(D) The first provides a certain outcome that the agrument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion.
Correct.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
Wrong - First does not provide evidence to support conclusion
VeritasKarishma Though I chose the write answer (D), I'd like to be concrete on why (C) is wrong. And I haven't figured it out yet.
Going by the explanation given by you above for (C) , both (C) and (D) will be INVALID(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.
First Statement Explanation
Development: Seeds are expensive, Fertilizers and Water required is more. Outcome: Increase in costs.These paramaters make the First Statement agreeable.
Second Statement Explanation
Consideration: Demand will rise.Even though demand rises, the cost will remain the same. So the second doesn't weigh against First.
We can reject (C).
I agree with you. But If I am using the same parameters to evaluate Option (D), It doesn't suit very well.
(D) The first provides a certain
outcome that the agrument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion.
First Statement: Explanation
Outcome: Increase in costs. (same as in Option (C))The argument doesn't seek to weigh against increase in costs. It accepts it as such.
Thus, the same parameters for (C) & (D) dont work.
If I change the definition of
outcome as SEEDS NOT BECOMING WIDESPREAD, as inferred by you in this
post, for both options (C) & (D),
both become VALID(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.
First Statement: Explanation
Development: Seeds are expensive, Fertilizers and Water required is more. Outcome: The seeds cause Increase in costs, so argument predicts that they may not be widespreadThese parameters make First Statement agreeable.
Second Statement: Explanation
Consideration: Demand will rise.Since there will be demand, we can expect them to be widespread. The second statement acknowleges a consideration(rise in demand) that weighs against the prediction(Seeds Not widespread).
These parametes make Second Statmenet Agreeable.
Thus (C) becomes Valid.
(D) The first provides a certain
outcome that the agrument seeks to weigh against; the second is a
consideration that support the main conclusion.
First Statement: Explanation
Outcome: Seeds Not widespread (same as in Option (C))The argument seek to weigh against the outcome saying the seeds will be widespread.
These parametes make First Statmenet Agreeable.
Second Statement Explanation.
Consideration: Rise in Demand. This supports the main conclusion that Seeds will be widespread.
These parametes make Second Statmenet Agreeable.
The parameter used for the Outcome(Not widespread) makes both (C) & (D) valid in this case.
I request you to throw some light on this.