Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion of the argument is that one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing produce from farms that use only organic pesticides. The basis for that claim is the fact that organic pesticides leave the surface of produce within a few hours of spraying. In order for this argument to be valid, we must assume that the organic pesticides do not harm the produce in any lasting way.

(A) This is unrelated to the argument since the conclusion speaks about not having to worry about ingesting produce on which only organic pesticides were known to be used.

(B) If anything, this statement runs counter to what the argument is saying. If produce that has been sprayed with organic pesticide reaches the final consumer within hours after it is picked, it is possible that the consumer does need be concerned about the pesticides.

(C) The conclusion of the argument is already limited to those farms which use "only organic pesticides."

(D) CORRECT. If a pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable then, while the organic pesticide will dissipate from the surface of the fruit in a few hours, it may remain inside the fruit. The author of this argument assumes that the pesticides cannot penetrate the skin.

(E) The issue of cost is unrelated to the argument's conclusion about pesticide residues.

Even I was inclined to pick C ...but somehow read that
"Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides," .... so consumer is buying from the farm and not from the market ...so he can knows....

hence I picked D ...
thnx

Between C and D.

Let's see

There are 2 types of farms as stated:

1. Farms that use inorganic pesticides - consumers worry about washing them

2. Farms that use only organic pesticides - consumers don't worry about washing them

What if there is category 3 farms that use both organics and inorganics contrary to C. Such farms must not be included to farms 2 because farms 2 use organics only. So, consumers should count them as farms 1 and worry about washing them.

There is no need for an additional assumption that eliminates possibility of such farms, it can be read from premises that such farms should be related to farms 1.


Eliminate C.

The key word over here is 'ingesting'. If organic pesticides dissipate within hours of use, they lose their efficacy. Thus there is no reason for farmers to use them. However it is possible that the organic pesticides may penetrate the fruit to an extent and hence be effective. If u wash or don't wash, you are still going to ingest organic pesticides albeit harmless quantity.

I have trouble with D because I think that the skin of the fruit is out of scope for this.
If organic pesticide was used and it penetrated the skin, who is to say that it will not
just disappear as if it did not pierce the skin?
Why do we assume that if it got into the fruit, it will not be able to get out?

Hi Ron,

The key word in the passage you have missed is 'surface' - so the passage does only talk about the effect that organic/inorganic have on the surface of the fruit.

So... in D, there is clearly something different at stake, that is to say the pesitcides below the surface.

Does that make sense?

James

Hi James
It does make sense, but my question is another...
When I approach statements like this, I am inclined to think that it is out of scope...
Since there is no mention of what happens underneath the surface of the fruit, why is this not
out of scope?
When do you decide that new information brought forth is out of scope and when do you decide that it
is not out of scope?
Is there any generalization that can be made?

Hi Ronr,

Fair question.

My advice here, is to be super attentive when reading the 'question' (as opposed to the passage itself). Then spending 20/30 seconds working out exactly what that means before charging on.

So, in this case the question is:

The argument above assumes that

So the first thing to do is to work out what the 'argument' is. I.e. what is the argument the person is making, this is likley to be the conclusion. In this passage that phrase is:
But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.

With that as the argument, it's clear that the argument depends on (assumes) that there are no pesticides under the skin.

Does that help?

James

while purchasing from a farm consumers offered two options to avoid the ingestion of toxins:
in the case of inorganic pesticides, wash the product thoroughly
and in the case of organic ones, no need to worry about ingesting pesticides
the argument have few assumptions
1- the consumer can know the type of pesticide used in that farm
2- pesticides can affect just the surfaces of the product.
.
.
The argument above assumes that

A Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase. the argument specifies "when purchasing from a farm"
B Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested. the time the product reaches the consumer can be related to the usage of organic pesticides. the important point is that we need just few hours after the application of organic pesticides not after it picked or harvested
C No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides. using both pesticide is not an issue bcz in this case the consumer can wash it thoroughly
D No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable. this option is matched with prethinking #2. if either pesticides can penetrate the skin of product then simply by washing it the consumer cannot avoid the ingestion of toxins
E The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce. the cost is irrelevant to the argument

premise for inorganic apple

1) Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying


premise for organic apple

organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue


there might be several assumptions here for conclusion to prevent the ingestion of toxins[b]

a) for inorganic apple
assumption are
1) washing cleans all the pesticide on inorganic apple
2) there is a tag on the apple so that customer knows that this is inorganic apple
3) process of pesticide doesn't damage the skin and penetrates inside the apple pulp

if we negate any if these assumptions- conclusion breaks- means you can't prevent the ingestion of the toxins


b) for organic apple

assumption are
1)consumer doesn't eat the very fresh apple, eats it after few hours of plucking
2) consumer knows whether he is picking the organic or inorganic ( it is given in the premise that consumers knows from which farm he is picking the apple, so this option or option A is out)
3) process of pesticide doesn't damage the skin and penetrates inside the apple pulp


[b]
conclusion is
Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.

Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.

The argument above assumes that

A Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase. -Out of scope. We are worried about the ingestion of the pesticides.
B Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested. -It is weakening the argument. If fruits reach people within hours then people would need to clean the fruits.
C No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides. -Out of scope. We are worried about the ingestion of pesticides.
D No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable. -Correct. What if the pesticides could enter the fruit? If it was so, then the fruits would have to be peeled, cleaned and then eaten.
E The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce. -We are not worried about the cost.

Inorganic pesticides remain active on the surfaces of fruits and vegetables for several days after spraying, while organic pesticides dissipate within a few hours after application, leaving the surface of the sprayed produce free of pesticide residue. Therefore, when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.

Conclusion: …when purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins. But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides

Falsification: What if the organic pesticides are absorbed by the fruits?

Possible assumption: The organic pesticides do not intoxicate the produce in any way.

The argument above assumes that

A Consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase.
(If the origins mean the farm and the type of pesticides the farm uses ) The argument has mentioned the statement - “when purchasing from a farm…”. So, it means that consumers are aware of the origins of the produce they purchase. This option does not provide any new information.

B Produce from farms that use organic pesticides reaches the consumer within hours after it is picked or harvested.
If the produce reaches within hours after it is picked from the harvested, then the produce may have the pesticide on it. Therefore, the customer definitely needs to worry.

C No farm uses both organic and inorganic pesticides.
Negate: Some farms use both organic and inorganic pesticides.
The negated statement does not affect the conclusion.

D No pesticide is capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
Negate: Some pesticides are capable of penetrating the skin of a fruit or vegetable.
If this fact were true, then organic pesticides do pose a threat. This information breaks the conclusion and hence the original option can be the assumption.

E The use of either type of pesticide does not increase the cost of produce.
Cost of produce is clearly out of scope.

I fail to understand how pesticides penetrating the skin of the fruit is within the scope of the argument. FYI I selected C

Hi Nikhil

The conclusion of the passage is in two parts:

1) When purchasing from a farm that uses inorganic pesticides, one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins.
2) But one need not worry about ingesting pesticides when purchasing from farms that use only organic pesticides.

Both the above statements are based on the time it takes for the pesticides to dissipate from the surface of the fruits and vegetables (hereafter f&v). However, imagine if either or both types of pesticides are able to penetrate the surface of f&v and go inside. Neither of the above statements will then be true (for the type of pesticide that is able to penetrate the surface of the f&v) since it will lead to ingestion of pesticide despite washing in the former (inorganic pesticide) case and by default in the latter case.

Therefore, there is an underlying assumption that pesticides do not penetrate the surface of f&v.

Hope this clarifies.

BUT I AM CAUTIOUS ABOUT OPTION A here:
If Consumers are not aware about the origins of the fruits and vegetables then what? I somewhat feel that knowing/not knowing is not concerned with what the conclusion says right? But if the consumers are not aware then how will they know? Is the conclusion more on "course of action" to be taken on two fruits than maybe checking on if customers will be able to determine the source of each? Please share views GMATNinja egmat ManhattanPrep Magoosh

Even if the customers are not aware of the origins of the produce they can be cautious and wash all the produce they buy, before consuming them. So option A cannot be the assumption to the conclusion that "one must be careful to wash the produce thoroughly before eating it to prevent the ingestion of toxins"

The correct assumption here is that washing the produce is able to eliminate the pesticides entirely and consumers will not be under risk of ingesting them. This is what option D mentions - "no pesticide is able to penetrate the skin of the vegetable". I'd picked option A as well, but in retrospect, option D is the right assumption here.

Hi, so i picked c but the reason given to eliminate c by you can also be imposed on the option chosen by you, d, because the arguement has stated that the pesticides are only there on the surface. Pls explain?