Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
20 Dec 2024, 01:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Conclusion - simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient for maintaining soil health on large farms.
Evidence - studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health.
Weaken the FORCE OF EVIDENCE. This means that we don't necessarily have to weaken the conclusion, but we have to weaken the fact that this evidence supports this conclusion.
A - 'Many' could be anywhere between 2-99. ELIMINATE
B - Achieving HIGHEST level of soil health is not our concern. We want to weaken the evidence that using no-till practice alone is not enough to maintain soil health. ELIMINATE
C - This option tells us that the farms using no-till practices often use high-tech machinery to effectively manage crop residue. So it's actually a combination of both that leads to better soil health and not just no-till practices. KEEP
D - This strengthens the argument. Even after the supporters of high-tech machinery funding the study, the results were still not in their favour. Therefore, high-tech machinery probably is not required. ELIMINATE
E - Chemical treatment is an out of scope phenomenon. ELIMINATE
FINAL ANSWER - Option C
Evidence - studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health.
Weaken the FORCE OF EVIDENCE. This means that we don't necessarily have to weaken the conclusion, but we have to weaken the fact that this evidence supports this conclusion.
A - 'Many' could be anywhere between 2-99. ELIMINATE
B - Achieving HIGHEST level of soil health is not our concern. We want to weaken the evidence that using no-till practice alone is not enough to maintain soil health. ELIMINATE
C - This option tells us that the farms using no-till practices often use high-tech machinery to effectively manage crop residue. So it's actually a combination of both that leads to better soil health and not just no-till practices. KEEP
D - This strengthens the argument. Even after the supporters of high-tech machinery funding the study, the results were still not in their favour. Therefore, high-tech machinery probably is not required. ELIMINATE
E - Chemical treatment is an out of scope phenomenon. ELIMINATE
FINAL ANSWER - Option C
Bunuel
20 Dec 2024, 02:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
This suggests an alternative approach (traditional plowing), but it does not challenge the validity of the studies or directly refute the claim that no-till farming is sufficient.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence directly.
B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
This undermines the conclusion that no-till farming alone is sufficient by showing that combining methods yields better results.
However, it does not attack the validity of the studies or the claim that no-till improves soil health compared to high-tech machinery.
❌ Weakens the conclusion somewhat but not the evidence.
C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
This suggests that high-tech machinery may still be needed for other tasks in no-till farming, but it does not weaken the evidence that no-till farming improves soil health.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence or the conclusion directly.
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 directly challenges the validity of the evidence by suggesting that the studies may be biased. If the studies were funded by parties with vested interests, their findings may not be reliable.
✅ Strongly weakens the evidence.
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 would imply that the studies were biased against no-till farming, favoring traditional methods. However, this contradicts the claim that the studies show better soil health for no-till practices.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence; it actually suggests the studies were unfavorable to no-till farming.
Ans D
This suggests an alternative approach (traditional plowing), but it does not challenge the validity of the studies or directly refute the claim that no-till farming is sufficient.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence directly.
B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
This undermines the conclusion that no-till farming alone is sufficient by showing that combining methods yields better results.
However, it does not attack the validity of the studies or the claim that no-till improves soil health compared to high-tech machinery.
❌ Weakens the conclusion somewhat but not the evidence.
C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
This suggests that high-tech machinery may still be needed for other tasks in no-till farming, but it does not weaken the evidence that no-till farming improves soil health.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence or the conclusion directly.
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 directly challenges the validity of the evidence by suggesting that the studies may be biased. If the studies were funded by parties with vested interests, their findings may not be reliable.
✅ Strongly weakens the evidence.
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 would imply that the studies were biased against no-till farming, favoring traditional methods. However, this contradicts the claim that the studies show better soil health for no-till practices.
❌ Does not weaken the evidence; it actually suggests the studies were unfavorable to no-till farming.
Ans D
20 Dec 2024, 04:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi everyone 
This is a weakening question.
The conclusion is: evidence suggests that simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient.
We need to weaken that Conclusion.
A - Irrelevant, this answer speaks of another practice: "Traditional Plowing". Eliminate.
B - this stengthening the argument. no-till is good for soil. - Eliminate.
C - Says that in order to use no till farming we must go through High tech agriculture which weaken the conclusion the no-till is sufficient. Correct.
D - Unclear impact. It can strengthen the argument and weaken it. if they funded by manufacturers, is it good for the soil or not? Unclear - Eliminate.
E - This answer said that the study is bias for the no-till practice. stil we don't know if it sufficient or not.
C is the correct answer.
This is a weakening question.
The conclusion is: evidence suggests that simply adopting no-till farming, which minimizes the disturbance of soil, is sufficient.
We need to weaken that Conclusion.
A - Irrelevant, this answer speaks of another practice: "Traditional Plowing". Eliminate.
B - this stengthening the argument. no-till is good for soil. - Eliminate.
C - Says that in order to use no till farming we must go through High tech agriculture which weaken the conclusion the no-till is sufficient. Correct.
D - Unclear impact. It can strengthen the argument and weaken it. if they funded by manufacturers, is it good for the soil or not? Unclear - Eliminate.
E - This answer said that the study is bias for the no-till practice. stil we don't know if it sufficient or not.
C is the correct answer.
