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 critics’ 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 farmers.
(E) The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.
A - Kind of confusing... I'm not too drawn by this one.
B - Yeah... warming up a little, let's see if something else does a better job.
C - Same feeling as A... not too accurate
E - This sounds more like a response by the science academy, rather than an evaluation of the critic's argument.
D - This seems like the best descriptor of the critic's argument. They said only a few suitable farms were studied, while implying many have failed. I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that the MAJORITY of farms are unsuitable for this practice, but it seems like the best answer of the lot.