AbhimanyuDhar wrote:
Hi Experts
GMATNinja,
I would present my analysis so that you could see gap in my understanding .
I understood the argument, but couldn't figure out between B and D.
Well the argument is that,
chemical ( similar to that of emitted by potato roots) which makes these pests emerge , will make these pests emerge , and these pests ,in absence of potato crop,will die of starvation.
Can i infer that if there were potato crop then they would survive after they would have emerged from their protective shells.
So basically , if we have a statement that these pests once emerged out of cyst , survive only in presence of potato crop, then we can say that yes authors claim is strengthened.
So B is very close to what i was thinking.
But D says Test experiments on fields have shown that these chemicals were successful in killing 90% of pests.
But i guess GMAT has different plans, and wants me to focus more on my mistakes.
So looking for learning what went wrong in this question?
I read somewhere that "Assumption can be a strengthener but strengthener need not be an Assumption"
Many have suggested that B is assumption and D is strengthener. If this is true then i have a major issue in approaching these type of questions.
Thanks
AD
Let's revisit the "company's plan," and then see how it will be affected by answer choice (B).
The company's plan is to "market [relevant chemicals] to potato farmers to spread on their fields when
no potatoes are planted." The company expects this to be successful because "any nematodes that emerge will soon starve to death." So, instead of emerging when potatoes are planted and eating the potato crop, the nematodes will emerge when the chemicals are spread and there are no potatoes to eat. The nematodes will then starve to death in the absence of potatoes to eat.
Hm, that's not a great time to be a nematode.
Now let's analyze (B) in the context of this plan:
Quote:
(B) The only part of a potato plant that a nematode eats is the roots.
The passage mentions roots in saying that nematodes "do not emerge except in the presence of chemicals
emitted by potato roots." The company has identified these chemicals and is using them to lure nematodes out of their protective capsules when there are no potatoes in the field. However, does it matter which part of the potato plant is actually
eaten by the nematodes? We know that nematodes are a "pest of potato crops" -- in other words, they cause harm to the crop in some way. Whether that harm is because they eat the roots, the leaves, or any other part of the potato plant is irrelevant to the success of the company's plan. You can eliminate (B) for this reason.
Answer choice (D), in the other hand, clearly supports the claim that the company's plan will be successful:
Quote:
Trials have shown that spreading even minute quantities of the chemicals on potato fields caused nine-tenths of the nematodes present to emerge from their cysts.
The company's plan depends on nematodes emerging from their cysts when the chemicals are spread. These trials show that nine-tenths of the nematodes do exactly that. (D) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!
but isnt D already mentioned in the passage that the relevant chemical which makes todes come out of capsules has been identified by the company? I thought this was already established in the passage and hence I eliminated it