Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 01:18

It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 01:18

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 16
Sneak Peek: $200 Off GMAT Prep
12:00 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 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 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 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 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 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 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.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3 4

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,715

Own Kudos:

810,331

[3]

Given Kudos: 105,795

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,715

Kudos: 810,331

[3]

Updated on: 01 Apr 2025, 14:43

Originally posted by Bunuel on 19 Dec 2024, 09:00.
Last edited by bb on 01 Apr 2025, 14:43, edited 2 times in total.

Updated E to be a strengthen

Kudos

Bookmarks

00:00

Start Timer

Pause Timer

Resume Timer

Show Answer

Hide

Show

History

Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:10) correct

44% (02:17) wrong

based on 409 sessions

History

Date

Time

Result

Not Attempted Yet

12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $40,000 of Prizes

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 or chemically treated.

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

Show Answer

Official Answer

Most Helpful Reply

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,715

Own Kudos:

810,331

[2]

Given Kudos: 105,795

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,715

Kudos: 810,331

[2]

Updated on: 20 Jan 2025, 16:22

Originally posted by Bunuel on 19 Dec 2024, 10:00.
Last edited by bb on 20 Jan 2025, 16:22, edited 1 time in total.

Updated E

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

12 Days of Christmas 2024 - 2025 Competition with $30,000 of Prizes

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.

GMAT Club's Official Explanation:

A. Incorrect. It does not challenge the claim that no-till farming alone can be sufficient or its relationship with high-tech machinery. This option is quite irrelevant. Eliminate.

B. Incorrect. This option does not tell us much comparative performance of high-tech farming and no-tilling farming. It tells us that no-tilling can be really good (highest soil health and fertility) if combined with another approach, which would strengthen the argument. Eliminate.

C. Correct Answer. This is the best candidate to weaken the evidence - we are told that while the no-tilling is a great approach, it does require complex machinery to take advantage of. So while you do not need high-tech machinery and use no-tilling farming practices to have high soil quality, those farms that report high soil quality, still utilize high-tech machinery for removing crop residue.

D. Incorrect. This option indicates that the studies might be influenced by interests from high-tech farming equipment manufacturers, who you would expect would argue for more use of high-tech machinery, which would strengthen the argument, not weaken it. Eliminate.

E. Incorrect. This option also strengthens the argument since no-tilling method would be considered more favorably if these were the measurement methods. Eliminate.

General Discussion

siddhantvarma

Joined: 12 May 2024

Last visit: 12 Jan 2026

Posts: 534

Own Kudos:

809

[2]

Given Kudos: 197

GMAT Focus 1: 655 Q87 V85 DI76 Verified score

Posts: 534

Kudos: 809

[2]

19 Dec 2024, 09:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

Claim: High-tech machinery isn't essential for soil health
Evidence: No-till farming is sufficient
Support: Studies show better soil health with no-till practices

(A) Scientists recommending traditional methods - This actually supports the original argument by suggesting alternatives to high-tech machinery

(B) Combining methods shows best results - This doesn't weaken the argument about no-till being sufficient

(C) Farms using no-till require high-tech machinery - This directly undermines the conclusion by showing that no-till farming actually depends on high-tech machinery. Hence no-till farming is not sufficient. Keep

(D) Studies were funded by machinery manufacturers - While this suggests bias, it would actually bias toward supporting high-tech machinery, not no-till farming

(E) Metrics favor recently tilled soil - This would actually strengthen the case for no-till farming if it still shows better results despite this bias

(C) should be the correct answer

MKeerthu

Joined: 12 Mar 2024

Last visit: 02 Apr 2025

Posts: 53

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 22

Posts: 53

Kudos: 59

19 Dec 2024, 09:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

The answer is option D.

we need to find an answer that would say no-tilling is not suitable for soil health.

Option A and B supports the argument.
Option C does not talk about the soil health. It was bit tricky to eliminate it.
Option D - The soil health was not good due to no-tilling and thus the machineries were suggested to the farmers.
Option E - supports the argument by saying tilling is also good

shoaibshariff07

Joined: 05 Jun 2024

Last visit: 26 Dec 2025

Posts: 15

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 266

Posts: 15

Kudos: 10

19 Dec 2024, 09:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

The correct answer is:

(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.

Reasoning:
The argument relies on the validity and objectivity of studies that claim no-till practices improve soil health. If those studies were funded by parties with a vested interest (e.g., manufacturers promoting high-tech equipment), the results could be biased. This would undermine the credibility of the evidence and weaken the conclusion that no-till farming alone is sufficient for maintaining soil health.

Why the other options are incorrect:

(A): While it presents a counter-opinion about plowing techniques, it does not directly challenge the evidence from the studies supporting no-till farming.
(B): This suggests a combined approach may be beneficial but does not weaken the evidence that no-till alone improves soil health.
(C): This introduces the role of machinery in managing crop residue but does not challenge the studies’ claims that no-till improves soil health.
(E): This option is tricky, but it suggests the metrics favor tilled and treated soils, which could actually support the conclusion that no-till farming performs well despite this bias.

(D) directly targets the credibility of the studies, casting doubt on the objectivity of the evidence, and therefore most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited.

A_Nishith

Joined: 29 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Nov 2025

Posts: 452

Own Kudos:

203

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 452

Kudos: 203

19 Dec 2024, 09:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

To identify the option that most seriously weakens the evidence supporting the conclusion, let's carefully analyze the argument and each choice.

The Argument:
Claim: No-till farming is sufficient to maintain soil health on large farms.
Evidence: Studies show that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health.
To weaken the argument, we need to undermine the reliability, relevance, or interpretation of the cited evidence.

Analysis of the Answer Choices:
(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
Irrelevant: This discusses traditional plowing recommendations, but it does not directly challenge the studies or the claim that no-till farming is sufficient for maintaining soil health.
Eliminate.

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
Partially relevant but weak: While this suggests that combining methods might be better than using only no-till practices, it does not directly refute the claim that no-till farming alone is sufficient. It introduces an alternative but does not weaken the evidence cited for no-till farming.
Eliminate.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
Irrelevant: This suggests that no-till farming might depend on high-tech machinery for crop residue management, but it does not undermine the studies’ findings about soil health. The argument is about soil health, not the machinery used.
Eliminate.

(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.
Highly relevant: This directly challenges the credibility of the studies, suggesting they might be biased because of their funding source. If the studies are biased, the evidence supporting the conclusion about no-till farming is weakened.
Keep.

(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.
Contradicts the premise: The argument states that no-till practices reported better soil health. If the metrics favor tilled soils, this would make the results even more compelling for no-till farming, as it suggests no-till methods are outperforming despite a disadvantage. This strengthens the evidence, not weakens it.
Eliminate.

Correct Answer: (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.

Nutella024

Joined: 05 Nov 2024

Last visit: 15 Aug 2025

Posts: 30

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 70

WE:Other (Retail: E-commerce)

Posts: 30

Kudos: 24

19 Dec 2024, 09:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

To weaken the argument effectively, we need to identify information that undermines the evidence linking no-till farming to better soil health. Let’s evaluate each option:
[hr]
(A) Many agricultural scientists continue to recommend traditional plowing techniques alongside modern machinery to prevent soil compaction and maintain fertility.
This provides a general recommendation but does not directly challenge the evidence that no-till practices improve soil health.
Incorrect.
(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
This weakens the conclusion by suggesting that no-till farming alone may not be sufficient to achieve optimal soil health, as combining methods yields better results.
Correct.
(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
While this highlights the need for machinery, it does not refute the evidence that no-till farming improves soil health.
Incorrect.
(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 raises questions about the credibility of the studies but does not directly challenge their findings or the link between no-till farming and better soil health.
Incorrect.
(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 challenge the validity of the studies if they favored tilled soils, but it contradicts the argument rather than weakening it directly.
Incorrect.
[hr]
Final Answer:
(B)

aviraj1703

Joined: 27 May 2024

Last visit: 10 Mar 2025

Posts: 98

Own Kudos:

123

Given Kudos: 6

Posts: 98

Kudos: 123

19 Dec 2024, 09:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) This actually supports the idea the no-till farming is better. - Incorrect

(B) Again this is a strengthener. - Incorrect

(C) This does not talk about soil health. - Incorrect

(D) Yes, if this is true then definitely no-till is not as good as concluded but it is being made to believe that it is beneficial for soil health. - Correct

(E) This still does not say that no-till is not good for soil health. - Incorrect

RamaSubramanian

Joined: 15 May 2022

Last visit: 03 Jul 2025

Posts: 15

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 73

Posts: 15

Kudos: 12

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 09:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

IMO it is C.
asked to weaken FORCE of EVIDENCE

- Commonly believed high tech machinery is needed to maintain soil health (when reading you can expect some contradictory statement in the next line since commonly believed is mentioned)
- Conclusion : however, no tilling, which minimizes disturbance to soil is sufficient
- Force of evidence : no-till reported better soil health [than soils using hi-tech machines]

A. You can reccomend whatever you want , I dont care, doesnt weaken the force of evidence : REJECT
B. New variable, combination of no-till + traditional tilling - so doesnt weaken : REJECT
C. Makes sense, even though it is no-till, Hi-tech machinery has been used. So, it is the case that Hi-tech machinery is needed : HOLD
D. If it were funded by Hi-tech machniery companies, they would make it to their advantage : REJECT
E: At first glance, this looks lucrative , especially since it is mentioned that no-till minimizes disturbance to soil (and not the case no-till means that soil wouldnt be tilled at all) thereby putting a huge doubt on the effectiveness of study. However, this introduces new variable chemically treated and recently tilled: REJECT

So, I would go for C

HarshaBujji

Joined: 29 Jun 2020

Last visit: 05 Apr 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

906

Given Kudos: 247

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 723

Kudos: 906

19 Dec 2024, 10:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

(A): Offers an alternative recommendation but doesn’t challenge the studies. Does not weaken.
(B): Suggests a combination of methods but doesn't invalidate the studies on no-till farming alone. Irrelavant
(C): Highlights the need for machinery, Just no till will not be able to fit here. Hence we cannot claim the evidence This is weakening the evidence Weaken.
(D): Suggests bias due to funding, but doesn’t directly question the study's metrics or validity. Irrelavant.
(E): Points to biased metrics favoring tilled soils, directly undermining the studies' validity and their claim about no-till farming. Weakens.

C vs E, E is best. As this shatters the entire conclusion.

IMO E

Rex885

Joined: 06 Apr 2024

Last visit: 27 Dec 2024

Posts: 25

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 25

Kudos: 28

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 10:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

Correct ans is option C)

counter-conclusion : extensive use of high-tech agricultural machinery is essential.
Conclusion: adopting no-till farming is sufficient. (so high-tech machinery not needed)
Premise : better soil health.

We need to weaken this conclusion. So we need to cast doubt that "no-till farming is NOT sufficient" or 'machinery is needed)

Option C) exactly does that. It says even no-till 'often' requires machinery.

options D and E) are tempting but they are going against the premise. They are saying the study favored machinery view. BUT Given premise clearly states that Study reported better soil for no-till.

Heix

Joined: 21 Feb 2024

Last visit: 13 Apr 2026

Posts: 460

Own Kudos:

164

[2]

Given Kudos: 63

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

GPA: 3.4

WE:Accounting (Finance)

Products:

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 460

Kudos: 164

[2]

19 Dec 2024, 10:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

Premises: evidence suggests that 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.

Conclusion: extensive use of high-tech agricultural machinery is essential for maintaining soil health on large farms.

let's evaluate each options

A) This doesn't weaken the evidence . It's just a recommendation from scientists, which doesn't directly address the studies citied

B) This actually strengthen the argument by suggesting that no-till practices contribute to better soil health, even if combined with traditional method

C) this weaken the conclusion somewhat by suggesting that no-till practice still requires high tech machinery but it doesn't directly weaken the evidence from the studies

D) This option cast doubt on the credibility of the studies, but it doesn't directly address the results of better health

E) It directly weaken the force of evidence by suggesting that the metrices used in the studies are biased towards recently tilled and chemically treated soils. This implies that the studies' result showing better soil health with no-till practice may be inaccurate or misleading due to the choice of metric used. This option is the correct answer

prashantthawrani

Joined: 07 Feb 2023

Last visit: 23 Jun 2025

Posts: 71

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 43

Location: India

Posts: 71

Kudos: 93

19 Dec 2024, 10:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

This does not directly undermine the evidence for no-till farming’s effectiveness.

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

its suggesting that. a combination of methods works best.but does not directly undermine the evidence for no-till farming’s effectiveness.

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

This shows high-tech machinery is needed in no-till farming, but does not directly undermine the evidence for no-till farming’s effectiveness.

(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 raises concerns about the credibility of the studies and suggests potential bias. Serious weakening.

(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 indicates the studies might not accurately assess soil health under no-till practices, undermining their conclusions. Weakening.

Conclusion:
The strongest weakening is (D).

Krunaal

Tuck School Moderator

Joined: 15 Feb 2021

Last visit: 19 Apr 2026

Posts: 853

Own Kudos:

909

Given Kudos: 251

Status:Under the Square and Compass

Location: India

Schools: Tuck '26 (WL) Ross '26 (A$$$$) Stern '26 (A) McCombs '26 (A$)

GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82 Verified score

GPA: 5.78

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: Tuck '26 (WL) Ross '26 (A$$$$) Stern '26 (A) McCombs '26 (A$)

GMAT Focus 1: 755 Q90 V90 DI82 Verified score

Posts: 853

Kudos: 909

19 Dec 2024, 10:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Okay, so this is an alternate viewpoint, this does not weaken the evidence cited. INCORRECT

B. This suggests that no-till farming alone may not be sufficient, but does not attack or question the evidence cited. INCORRECT

C. This highlights a dependency on machinery but does not undermine the evidence that no-till practices improve soil health. INCORRECT

D. This does question the credibility of evidence but in that case, the evidence gets stronger as high tech companies wouldn't want no-till farming to be sufficient. INCORRECT

E. This option directly attacks the methodology of the studies. If the metrics are flawed or biased, the entire argument falls apart. CORRECT

Answer E.

GraCoder

Joined: 15 Dec 2024

Last visit: 18 Jan 2026

Posts: 65

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 19

Posts: 65

Kudos: 70

19 Dec 2024, 10:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the 12 Days of Christmas Competition

Win $40,000 in prizes: Courses, Tests & more

(A) Doesn't weaken it much, lets investigate further options
(B) Doesn't weaken as such, just tells that mixture of various techniques yield fruitful results too.
(C) Weakens it slightly lets investigate further
(D) no-til farming requires less machinery why would manufacturer want to promote that, its a fallacy.
(E) If the evaluation metric itself is wrong, it seriously puts a question on the whole study itself, which was the sole basis of the argument.

hr1212

GMAT Forum Director

Joined: 18 Apr 2019

Last visit: 21 Apr 2026

Posts: 913

Own Kudos:

1,310

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,197

GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q90 V85 DI90 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 775 Q90 V85 DI90 Verified score

Posts: 913

Kudos: 1,310

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 10:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

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. This just gives one more recommendation which would be better in general but doesn't give us any counter points for the evidence sited.

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health. Again an extra information for highest fertility levels but we are just concerned with only no-till practices being sufficient.

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling. This gives an additional angle where no-till farming would often be accompanied with high-tech machinery which would be leading to better soil fertility rather than just no-till farming giving good results.

(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 the studies were funded by high-tech farming equipment manufacturers then they should have biased the test results other way around instead of those being against using their machineries.

(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 strengthens the argument by saying that the metrics which generally favors tilled soils seems to favor results from no-till practices giving overall better results.

ashminipoddar10

Joined: 14 Jun 2024

Last visit: 07 Jul 2025

Posts: 56

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 26

Posts: 56

Kudos: 54

[1]

19 Dec 2024, 10:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

Quote:

We need to look for something that weakens the evidence where it has been seen that "no-till practices are sufficient to maintain soil health"

A) this support the evidence cited . WRONG

B) if true, this would put the evidence in question as if the better soil health seen in farms using no-till practices also use traditional tilling, then the good soil health cannot be completely attributed to no-till practices. CORRECT

C) the high tech machinery used is not to maintain soil health but to remove crop residue. this also does not link high tech machinery to better soil health in no-till farms. WRONG

D) the funding of the study by manufacturers would be opposite of conflict of interest as the results are opposite to where their interest might lie. WRONG

E) irrelevant. the soils assesed are the ones that are not tilled. and if they favoured tilled soils then the tilled soils would have better health, which is not the case.. WRONG

Mantrix

Joined: 13 May 2023

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 253

Own Kudos:

132

[2]

Given Kudos: 44

Location: India

Schools: MiM '26 HEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiM '26 (A) Imperial (A) IESE

GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q87 V75 DI77 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 635 Q82 V82 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 9

Schools: MiM '26 HEC MiM '26 ESSEC MiM '26 (A) Imperial (A) IESE

GMAT Focus 2: 635 Q82 V82 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 253

Kudos: 132

[2]

19 Dec 2024, 11:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

P1: High-tech machinery isn't essential for soil health; no-till farming is sufficient
P2: Studies show farms using no-till practices have better soil health
Conclusion: No-till farming alone is enough for soil health

To weaken this argument

Let's analyze each option:

(A) This just states a recommendation but doesn't weaken the evidence about no-till farming's effectiveness
(B) This might slightly weaken the argument, but it doesn't directly challenge the sufficiency of no-till farming
(C) This STRONGLY weakens the argument because it reveals that no-till farming actually requires high-tech machinery to be effective. This directly contradicts the conclusion that no-till farming alone is sufficient without high-tech machinery.
(D) This questions the credibility of the studies but doesn't directly address the relationship between no-till farming and machinery
(E) This challenges the measurement methods but doesn't specifically address the relationship between no-till farming and machinery

Ama2424

Joined: 06 Dec 2024

Last visit: 16 Mar 2026

Posts: 9

Given Kudos: 15

Location: Nigeria

Posts: 9

Kudos: 0

19 Dec 2024, 11:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

This statement negates the arguement that no till leads to better farm conditions since, at the end of the day high-tech agricultural machinery are used to remove crop residue. The answer is c.

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,985

Own Kudos:

5,855

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,985

Kudos: 5,855

19 Dec 2024, 11:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.
The statement does not weaken the force of evidence cited since it does is an unrelated additional information.
Incorrect

(B) Farms that combine no-till practices with traditional tilling methods report the highest levels of soil fertility and overall health.
The argument is not concerned about combining no-till practices with traditional tilling methods.
Incorrect

(C) Farms using no-till farming often require high-tech agricultural machinery to effectively manage crop residue, which is not removed by tilling.
The statement most seriously weakens the force of evidence cited since high-tech agricultural machinery is still required to maintain soil health.
Correct

(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.
Manufacturers promoting high-tech farming equipment would NOT like to promote studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health since they would like to sell their high-tech agricultural machinery.
Incorrect

(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 is a one time phenomenon and does not weaken the evidence supported by studies indicating that farms using no-till practices consistently report better soil health
Incorrect

IMO C