blitzkriegxX wrote:
GMATNinja
I have a slightly different perspective on option E! Yes! Option E that none have struggled eliminating!
(E) The species of insect that has infested cotton plants has never been known to attack soybean plants.
All these people grew soybeans all these years. So they do not really know if their land has insects that are known to attack cotton.
So according to option E, the insects that attack cotton and soy are not the same.
So maybe the insects might attack the cotton because it is something common there?
I guess I am sliding into the "if/maybe" dimension again?
Let's stay focused on the conclusion we're given, then ask whether choice (E) weakens that specific conclusion.
We know that the plan is for soybean farmers
to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead. This plan will "increase [the farmers'] income significantly" by taking advantage of the high price of cotton. The correct answer choice is the one that
most seriously weakens the plan's chance of success.Answer choice (E) states:
Quote:
The species of insect that has infested cotton plants has never been known to attack soybean plants.
This tells us that soybean plants have never been attacked by the insects that infested the cotton plants. Therefore, it's unlikely that this insect infestation will affect soybean plants in the same way it has affected cotton plants.
So what? This information
does not weaken the plan's chance of success, because it does not change the evidence that the farmers used to justify their plan in the first place (the dramatically high price of cotton and the stable price of soybeans). If anything, this choice reinforces why we expect the price of soybeans to remain stable.
As for your analysis: yes, you're sliding into "if/maybe" here.
Let's clarify.
The passage states that the insect infestation occurred in
"certain cotton-growing regions of the world." Answer choice (E) does not provide any evidence that Ortovia is in one of those regions. Also, the fact that soybean plants are
not attacked by the same species that infested cotton plants does not provide any evidence that this species
does live in Ortovia. Therefore, we cannot infer that the insects are present based on the information in the answer choice.
On the other hand, the information provided by answer choice (B) directly undermines the plan by providing a reason to doubt that the cotton infestation will continue -- consequently lowering expectations that the dramatic increases in the price of cotton will last. So (B) is a much better option than (E).
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs
Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction
YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset
SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS
Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?
Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
close
