It is currently 23 Sep 2017, 06:09

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2013
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V32
GMAT 2: 650 Q45 V35
GMAT 3: 660 Q50 V30
GMAT 4: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.54
WE: Business Development (Non-Profit and Government)

Show Tags

06 Feb 2014, 23:27
Q.
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

For this question, the main conclusion is "the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. "

However, why cant "Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilize" be the main conclusion? The reasoning could be - "Because the use of genetically modified seeds is likely to become widespread, therefore most farmers will not be able to be compensated due to ....".

Have i missed the point? Please clarify

thanks

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 822 [1], given: 5

Show Tags

07 Feb 2014, 16:23
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
pkum036 wrote:
Q.
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

For this question, the main conclusion is "the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. "

However, why cant "Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilize" be the main conclusion? The reasoning could be - "Because the use of genetically modified seeds is likely to become widespread, therefore most farmers will not be able to be compensated due to ....".

Have i missed the point? Please clarify

thanks

Yes, you are kind of missing the point . Remember to stick to the facts of the argument and don't try to construct an argument that you find more logically appealing or that makes more sense to you. Here is a nice trick for you to use when you have two possible conclusions ... I'll call it the "therefore test". The conclusion will be the main point of the argument or the last stop in the logical chain - the piece that makes sense after the "therefore". See below:

1) Savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer
2) The use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread

The structure of the argument says:
+The genetic seeds are more expensive and require more fertilizer/water
+Demand for non-pesticide food continues to rise
Therefore
1) Savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer
or
2) The use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread

The premises clearly lead us to the last logical point (2) that in spite of the increased cost, the demand for this food will cause the seeds to become widespread. NOTE: This clearly has some assumptions that are made in the process (i.e. the demand will increase the chargeable price of the food to overcome the increased costs).

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 822 [1], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2013
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V32
GMAT 2: 650 Q45 V35
GMAT 3: 660 Q50 V30
GMAT 4: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.54
WE: Business Development (Non-Profit and Government)

Show Tags

10 Feb 2014, 22:48
Thanks Kyle! very useful explanation. I understood the mistake i was making.

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 9

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
what's the purpose of the premise/conclusion? 4 03 Aug 2017, 13:41
1 Inference/Conclusion/Assumption ?? 5 06 Feb 2017, 02:32
2 Premise or Conclusion? 4 29 Jul 2013, 11:03
11 conclusion question 11 25 Jan 2008, 08:51
Must be True Vs Inference Vs Main Point/Conclusion Questions 2 07 Sep 2015, 03:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by