12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 4: It is commonly believed

(A) Suggests that traditional plowing is still beneficial, but it doesn't directly challenge the effectiveness of no-till farming - Incorrect

(B) Suggests that a combination of no-till and traditional tilling yields the best results, which would strengthen the argument - Incorrect

(C) While no-till is a good approach to soil health, complex machines are needed to take advantage of this technique, which weakens the argument - Correct

(D) If the studies were influenced by manufacturers of farming equipment and still favoured no-till farming, it shows support - Incorrect

(E) If the metrics favour tilled soil, it would support the argument - Incorrect

Hi All,

we need to weaken the evidence

option A) No impact on the argument

option B) Sure that is a possibility , but here we need to weaken the argument that no till support better health than use of machinery etc. We can think of that no till farming with another factor is the reason, but the option says the HIGHEST LEVEL.

option C) This option states that the farms using no till farming still have to use high machinery tools for crop residue. This weaken the argument as its not just no till faming that is the factor of better soil health, the help of high tech machinery is also taken.

option D) Even if they were baising the result, this option would weaken if the conclusion was other way around or it was the companies associated with no till faming organizing the result. The result was not in the favor of the companies so this doesnt weaken the argument.

option E)So even though metrics favor tilled soil, then also they favor no till farming. This is strengthening the argument.

therefore our answer is C

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited?

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.

The goal of this question is to find a statement that weakens the evidence of the question, recapping, no-till farming is most effective given evidence. Now I'd imagine myself before looking at the answers that the correct option will attack the credibility or accurateness of the evidence.

Only answer (E) comes up with something alike.

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility. Out of Context

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health. Not in light of evidence

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling. Correct. These farms in study may use high tech machines.

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results. This actually goes against the result of study

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated. Does not favour tilling

Answer C

It is commonly believed that the extensive use of high-tech agricultural machinery is essential for maintaining soil health on large farms. However, evidence suggests that simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient. This conclusion is supported by studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited?

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.

Deconstructing the argument:
Claim: Use of high tech machinery improves soil health.
Argument's counter-point: No-till farming is sufficient for soil health.
ˆThis also becomes the conclusion of the argument.
Evidence for the conclusion: farmers who use no till farming have better soil health.

The argument assumes that "better soil health" is achieved just by "no-till farming practice". To weaken this, we need to find something that shows there might be another factor improving soil health.

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
Seems irrelevant; doesn't address the impact of no-till farming on soil health

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
Ok, true. This is what the argument used as evidence but we still don;t know why they have good soil health.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
Ok, so here it says that farmers using no-till farming actually use high-tech machinery. So, perhaps, high tech machinery contributes to improving the soil health. If that were the case, then just practicing no-till farming isn't enough to ensure good soil health.
Therefore, this weakens the inference drawn from the evidence, that is, "farmers who practice no-till farming have better soil health due to no-till farming".

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.
If this were true, the results should be biased in favour of high-tech machinery, not otherwise.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.
Again, if this were true, soil which were "tilled" would be in better health condition than otherwise

Hence, C is the correct answer.

the force of the evidence = " studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health "
We need to weaken the above

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
This doesn't weaken the evidence that no-till practices can do well by itself

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
This doesn't weaken the evidence that no-till practices can do well by itself

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
This does weaken by stating that high-tech machinery is often needed

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.
so the studies funders actually have a bias towards high-tech equipment, but the result still supports no-till practices. This actually strengthen.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.
so the metrics actually are biased towards "tilled and chemically treated", but the result still supports no-till practices. This actually strengthen.

Answer: C

Premise: high tech machinery essential for soil health but we have studies for no till showing better soil health
Conclusion: No till farming is sufficient.

We can weaken the evidence cited by showing that some other thing is also helping in maintaining soil health and not just no till practice.
lets see the options:
A- this is not weakening. it is a parallel statement.
B- this strengthens the evidence. Opposite
C- Right answer. This clearly shows that no till is sufficient only when combined with high tech machinery. hence we can say that to maintain soil health, no till practices alone cannot help.
D- if promoted by high tech manufacturers, the results should have been opposite
E- out of scope

It is a weaken question over no-till practices support better soil health alone.

(A) It does not address the effectiveness of no-till practices over soil health (x)
(B) It weaken the argument by indicating no-till practices alone may not as effective as combination of methods. (v)
(C) It provide additional information over no-till farming method, does not either support or weaken the argument (x)
(D) It introduces potential bias for promoting high-tech farming equipment which may impair the trustworthiness of studies over the effectiveness of no-till farming (v)
(E) It weaken the argument by revealing the soils used in the studies are being tilled and chemically treated. (v)

So (B) address need combination of other methods
(D) address potential bias for promoting high-tech faring equipment
(E) address the soil bias being used in the studies

By assessing the severity of these 3 points, E would be much serious in weaken the effectiveness of no-till practices in soil health.
My answer is E.

Explanation:

The passage claims that no-till farming alone keeps soil healthy without needing high-tech machines.

Option D: The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.

Why Option D Weakens the Evidence:
If the studies were funded by companies that benefit from high-tech machinery, the results might be biased. We can't fully trust the studies' conclusion that no-till farming alone is better for soil health.

Other Options Don't Weaken the Evidence as Strongly:

• A: Suggest traditional methods are still recommended but don't directly question the studies.
• B: Shows combining methods is best, but doesn't directly undermine no-till alone.
• C: Indicates no-till still needs high-tech machines, which challenges the idea but isn't as direct as D.
• E: Questions about how soil health is measured but doesn't attack the study's credibility as much as D.

Answer: D

The argument states that no-till farming is sufficient for good soil health, based on studies showing better soil health on no-till farms.

We need to find something that weakens this evidence.

(A) This discusses traditional plowing but doesn't directly weaken the evidence supporting no-till. It presents an alternative view but doesn't challenge the cited studies.

(B) This weakens the idea that no-till alone is sufficient, but doesn't attack the evidence presented.

(C) This would suggest high-tech machinery is often important even on no-till farms, but that still doesn't contradict the reported finding of better soil health in those settings.

(D) This casts doubt on the validity of the studies by pointing out a potential source of bias. This is the correct choice.

(E) If the metrics favor tilled soil, then no-till farms showing better soil health despite this bias strengthens the evidence, rather than weakening it.

Therefore, the correct option is D

QS: Weakening
Argument:
Ex.use of Agri.Machines (AM)-------> healthy soil.
HOWEVER
Conclusion: No-till farming (NTF)------> guarantees healthy soil.
Because: Farmers used NTF said so.

(Is the soil similar in condition for both cases? How representative are the farmers? )
A)Many modern scientists recommend BOTH. ---> Not a weakener. Neutral. OUT
B)NTF+trad.tilling-----> The highest?! SO this doesn’t say anything about AM. OUT
C)NTF has to be used with AM to give an intended result? AHA it weakens
D)We don’t care of who funded NTF. OUT
E)Describing the metrics used to assess soil health? OUT.
So, C is correct

Answer is C.

Evidence: Adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient, and farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health, so high-tech agricultural machinery is not essential.

(A) Incorrect - evidence does not reference traditional plowing techniques.

(B) Incorrect - supports evidence about effectiveness of no-till practices.

(C) Correct - proves that no-till farming still often requires high-tech machinery, weakening the implication that no-till without high-tech machinery is sufficient.

(D) Incorrect - doesn't make sense since evidence should be in favor of using high-tech machinery if the studies were funded by high-tech machinery manufacturers, which isn't the case.

(E) Incorrect - doesn't make sense with the evidence because it shows superior results for no-till, which would only emphasize the superiority of no-till if the metrics were actually not in their favor and in the favor of tilled and treated soils.

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.

Strengthens the argument at best. We need to weaken the evidence. Eliminate A.

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.

The information provided in Option B strengthens the argument. Eliminate B.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.

Well this option states that high-tech agricultural machinery is still required even when the farms use no-till farming. Hence, the options weakens the evidence provided in stating the conclusion. Keep C.

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.

Irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate D.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.

Strengthens the argument at best. We need to weaken the evidence. Eliminate E

Option C

It is commonly believed that the extensive use of high-tech agricultural machinery is essential for maintaining soil health on large farms. However, evidence suggests that simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient. This conclusion is supported by studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited?

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility. (IC: Traditional plowing is not relevant)

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health. (IC: If anything it supports, also tradition tilling is not used in the argument)

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling. (IC: Crop residue is not the point of discussion here)

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results. (IC: funding of the studies is not relevant)

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated. (C: If metric favors the no-till then it provide weakness to the supporting argument of the conclusion)

Ans: E

Conclusion: Simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient for maintaining soil health on large farms.

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
Does not impact the argument and just acts as an additional piece of information. Eliminate

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
Highest levels of soil fertility is not the question here. Does not weaken the argument. Eliminate

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
This casts a doubt on the conclusion which says that simply adopting no-till farming, is sufficient. Keep

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results.
If so then the results should have been that by using no-till practices, the soil health should deteriorate instead of the soil heath being better by using no-till practices. Hence eliminate

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated.
If so then this in a way strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate

On analyzing each of the options below:

(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility - This is irrelevant to the argument as what the experts believe has no bearing on the argument. Eliminate

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health-This may seem to be relevant but ultimately the argument says that no till practices are sufficient enough to ensure soil health & it does not really imply that it is the best practice to follow. Eliminate.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling-This directly weakens the argument as high tech machinery is still needed to address soil health by removing crop residue. We can keep this option.

(D) The studies assessing soil health on farms using no-till practices were funded by manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment, potentially biasing the results - The source of funding is irrelevant to the argument being made. Eliminate.

(E) The metrics used to assess soil health in the studies are typically those that favor soils which have been recently tilled and chemically treated-This does not weaken the argument because the metrics are biased in favor of tilling methods. Also the argument talks about the use of machinery which is not addressed. Eliminate

Hence the correct answer to this question is option (C)

Analysis of Other Options:
(A): This does not directly address the validity of the studies or the claim about no-till farming's sufficiency. It instead provides a counter-recommendation, which does not weaken the evidence cited.
(B): While this suggests that a combination of methods might be better, it does not challenge the specific claim that no-till farming alone can be sufficient.
(C): This indicates that high-tech machinery may still be necessary for no-till farming but does not directly challenge the evidence that no-till farming improves soil health.
(E): This weakens the evidence only if the studies actually favored traditional tilling, which is not the case based on the information provided.


IMO D