Bunuel
Many farmers have begun to switch from traditional crops to genetically-modified crops, which help to increase yield and protect against potential loss from disease or insect infestation. In doing so, however, these farmers take a large risk: at any point, the government could ban or heavily restrict these genetically-modified crops, rendering an entire year’s work useless.
Which of the following can be inferred from the information above?
A. It is riskier for a farmer to grow genetically-modified crops than to grow traditional crops.
B. The government should consider the impact that a law against genetically-modified crops would have on farmers.
C. Farmers who grow traditional crops are taking a risk in doing so.
D. It is unwise for farmers to switch from traditional crops to genetically-modified crops.
E. Unless a law is passed banning genetically-modified crops, farmers are better-served by growing genetically-modified crops than by growing traditional crops.
VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL SOLUTION:
This Inference question uses the classic testmaker device of misdirection. Remember: in an Inference question the correct answer MUST BE TRUE. So while the author's purpose in writing this paragraph may be to highlight the risks inherent in switching from traditional crops to to genetically-modified crops, the answer choices consistent with that theme go just a bit too far to be provable:
(A) Can you really prove that genetically-modified crops are riskier to grow than traditional crops? You know from the stimulus that genetically-modified crops help to eliminate the risks from disease and insect infestation: could those risks inherent with traditional crops be larger than the risk of a law banning genetic modification? Note also that the government could pass such a law, but the argument doesn't give a probability for how likely that is to happen. So this comparison isn't one that can be drawn without further information.
For the same reason (D) is incorrect. Is it provable that it's unwise to switch to genetically-modified crops when you don't even know which type of crop is riskier?
By the same logic, (E) - which goes the opposite direction and says that without a law banning genetically-modified crops it's a good idea to grow them instead of traditional crops - is also not necessarily true. You just don't know all those factors: what if, for example, genetically-modified crops become associated with health risks, or consumer sentiment otherwise turns against them and they don't sell for nearly the amount that traditional crops would? Or the costs associated with the genetic modification are higher than the increase in profits would be?
Choice (C) is correct, as it's something you can definitely prove: the fist sentence talks about two risks with traditional crops:
Modified crops "...protect against potential loss from disease or insect infestation." Potential loss is a risk, so choice (C) has definitive proof and is therefore correct. Alas, the testmaker misdirects you away from it by making the gist of the argument talk about the risks with the other type of crop - let this be a lesson that the "must be true" inference standard is the crux of Inference questions. The right answer must be true, but it need not be the main point of the paragraph.