Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with [#permalink]
18 Jun 2005, 08:07
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
26. Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with natural methods, some well-managed farms are able to reduce the amounts of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide and also of antibiotics they use without necessarily decreasing yields; in some cases yields can be increased.
Critics: Not so. The farms the academy selected to study were the ones that seemed most likely to be successful in using natural methods. What about the farmers who have tried such methods and failed?
Which one of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the criticsâ€™ response?
(A) Success and failure in farming are rarely due only to luck, because farming is the management of chance occurrences.
(B) The critics show that the result of the study would have been different if twice as many farms had been studied.
(C) The critics assume without justification that the failures were not due to soil quality.
(D) The critics demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority of framers.
(E) The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.
A - not relevant
B - can not be justified, would have been right if the study included failed farms.
C - Who knows??
D - critics dont say that. I think critics are more intersted in the results of the study rather than drawing a conclusion.
E - fits well here...
It shows that critics think that the study was done to produce results but the results can not be reprentative of the whole..