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.
Jul 0608:00 AM PDT
-05:00 PM PDT
Compete to win some amazing Prizes such as Admissions Consulting Packages, Courses, and more. This is your Best Opportunity to improve your GMAT Score! Register to Participate
Jul 0810:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Receive 2 FREE hours of tutoring when you enroll in a 655+ course
Jul 1010:00 AM IST
-11:00 PM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
Jul 1012:00 PM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
50% off all study plans with code PROGRESS - Expires Monday 7/13
Jul 1209:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Increase your score with a powerful GMAT course taught live online + 6 months of access to TTP OnDemand GMAT Masterclass included! Sundays July 12, 2026-October 1, 2026, 9:30am-12:30pm EST.- Jul 12
11:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Join us in a GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions. - Jul 14
07:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
In this live AMA, Ruthvik shares how he scored a 745 on the GMAT and answers questions from students directly. From the mindset that kept him consistent to the way he approached mocks and managed test-day nerves..
29 Jun 2026, 09:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
65% (02:08) correct
35%
(02:22)
wrong
based on 136
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Consumer advocate: Some agricultural crops are now being genetically engineered to produce important pharmaceuticals. However, this development raises the possibility that the drugs will end up in the general food supply, since if pollen from a drug-producing crop drifts into a nearby field in which an ordinary, non-drug-producing crop of the same species is being grown, the pollen could fertilize that crop and turn it into a drug-producing crop as well.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken consumer advocate's argument?
(A) As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were present in the general food supply.
(B) If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown, then there is no risk of the pollen fertilizing the latter crops.
(C) The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions of the general food supply.
(D) In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in ordinary crops of the same species.
(E) If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for scientists to identify the latter crop
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken consumer advocate's argument?
(A) As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were present in the general food supply.
(B) If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown, then there is no risk of the pollen fertilizing the latter crops.
(C) The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions of the general food supply.
(D) In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in ordinary crops of the same species.
(E) If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for scientists to identify the latter crop
29 Jun 2026, 10:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
D weakens this most directly because it says that even if an ordinary food crop became drug-producing, the drug would not be present in the part people actually eat. So the drugs would not end up in the general food supply in the relevant sense.
Why not A? It says the drugs may not be dangerous, but the argument is about whether the drugs could enter the food supply, not whether they would be harmful.
Why not A? It says the drugs may not be dangerous, but the argument is about whether the drugs could enter the food supply, not whether they would be harmful.
yc168
29 Jun 2026, 17:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
Consumer advocate: Some agricultural crops are now being genetically engineered to produce important pharmaceuticals. However, this development raises the possibility that the drugs will end up in the general food supply, since if pollen from a drug-producing crop drifts into a nearby field in which an ordinary, non-drug-producing crop of the same species is being grown, the pollen could fertilize that crop and turn it into a drug-producing crop as well.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the consumer advocate's argument?
The advocate argues that drug-producing crops may contaminate the food supply because their pollen could make ordinary crops produce drugs too. The best weakener should show that even if this fertilization occurs, the drugs still would not enter the edible food supply.
(A) As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were present in the general food supply.
This does not weaken the argument. The advocate’s concern is that the drugs could enter the food supply. A says they may not be dangerous, but it still allows that they could be present.
(B) If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown, then there is no risk of the pollen fertilizing the latter crops.
This is not enough. It only says what would happen if pollen drift were prevented. It does not say pollen drift actually will be prevented.
(C) The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions of the general food supply.
This weakens only slightly. Even crops that are not major food sources could still enter the general food supply.
(D) In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in ordinary crops of the same species.
This is correct. Even if pollen turns an ordinary crop into a drug-producing crop, the drug would not be in the edible part of that crop. So the drug would not end up in the food people consume.
(E) If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for scientists to identify the latter crop.
This does not strongly weaken the argument. Being able to identify the crop does not show that it will be identified before entering the food supply.
Answer: (D)
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the consumer advocate's argument?
The advocate argues that drug-producing crops may contaminate the food supply because their pollen could make ordinary crops produce drugs too. The best weakener should show that even if this fertilization occurs, the drugs still would not enter the edible food supply.
(A) As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were present in the general food supply.
This does not weaken the argument. The advocate’s concern is that the drugs could enter the food supply. A says they may not be dangerous, but it still allows that they could be present.
(B) If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown, then there is no risk of the pollen fertilizing the latter crops.
This is not enough. It only says what would happen if pollen drift were prevented. It does not say pollen drift actually will be prevented.
(C) The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions of the general food supply.
This weakens only slightly. Even crops that are not major food sources could still enter the general food supply.
(D) In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in ordinary crops of the same species.
This is correct. Even if pollen turns an ordinary crop into a drug-producing crop, the drug would not be in the edible part of that crop. So the drug would not end up in the food people consume.
(E) If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for scientists to identify the latter crop.
This does not strongly weaken the argument. Being able to identify the crop does not show that it will be identified before entering the food supply.
Answer: (D)
