[quote="PavanChebolu"]Cocoa grown organically on trees within the shade of the rain forest canopy commands a premium price. However, acquiring and maintaining the certification that allows the crop to be sold as organically grown is very time-consuming and laborious. Meanwhile, the price premium for the grower is about 30 percent, whereas cocoa trees grown in full sun using standard techniques can have twice the yield of organic, shade-grown trees. Financially, therefore, standard techniques are the better choice for the farmer.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Cocoa can be grown only in a climate that has the temperature and moisture characteristics of a tropical rain forest.(doesn't weaken the argument) it is suggesting about the suitable environment only
(B) Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.(strong contender because it talks about cost)
(C) Although organically grown cocoa has long commanded a price premium over cocoa grown using standard techniques, its price has fluctuated considerably during that period.(what even if prices has fluctuated it still commands a premium)
(D) Cocoa is not the only cash crop that can be raised on plots that leave the rain forest canopy overhead essentially intact.(out of scope)
(E) Governments and international conservation organizations are working to streamline organic certification so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work (it will strengthen)
So choice B is correct.
Thanks
Sent from my Lenovo K33a42 using
GMAT Club Forum mobile app