It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without

Question

Competition Mode Question

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals—as the only natural foods. A plant will take up the molecules it needs from the soil and turn them into the same natural compounds, whether or not those molecules come from chemicals applied to the soil. All compounds made by plants are part of nature, so all are equally natural.

The argument proceeds by

(A) redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument

(B) giving a reason why a recommended course of action would be beneficial

(C) appealing to the authority of scientific methods

(D) showing that a necessary condition for correctly applying the term “organic” is not satisfied

(E) reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting the position being rejected

freedom128 · Answer

(A) is CORRECT ANSWER as it exactly discusses this redefinition.

(B) is out of scope as benefit is not discussed.

(C) is out of scope as authority and the scientific method are not discussed.

(D) is incorrect. The argument never lays out necessary conditions for calling a plant "organic," so this can’t be right.

(E) is incorrect. It basically says that the argument takes evidence offered in support of the "organic=natural" argument and reinterprets it. But no actual evidence is ever offered in support of the "organic=natural" argument. If this answer choice were correct, the main argument would have nothing to reinterpret.

FINAL ANSWER IS (A)

Siddharthshahani · Answer

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals—as the only natural foods. A plant will take up the molecules it needs from the soil and turn them into the same natural compounds, whether or not those molecules come from chemicals applied to the soil. All compounds made by plants are part of nature, so all are equally natural.

The argument proceeds by

(A) redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument

(B) giving a reason why a recommended course of action would be beneficial

(C) appealing to the authority of scientific methods

(D) showing that a necessary condition for correctly applying the term “organic” is not satisfied (Argument is about "Natural" and not "organic")

(E) reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting the position being rejected

Statement 1 - Saying that only 'Organic' foods are 'Natural' is wrong
Statement 2 - Gives reason in support of Statement 1
Statement 2 - Conclusion, all compounds are equally natural

IMO  A

unraveled · Answer

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without the application of synthetic chemicals—as the only natural foods. A plant will take up the molecules it needs from the soil and turn them into the same natural compounds, whether or not those molecules come from chemicals applied to the soil. All compounds made by plants are part of nature, so all are equally natural.

The argument proceeds by

(A) redefining a term in a way that is favorable to the argument - CORRECT.

(B) giving a reason why a recommended course of action would be beneficial - WRONG. Nowhere in the argument the author's trying to advise in any form.

(C) appealing to the authority of scientific methods - WRONG. No appealing.

(D) showing that a necessary condition for correctly applying the term “organic” is not satisfied - WRONG. Author doesn't look dissatisfied at any moment. He/she is only explaining how plants make natural compounds.

(E) reinterpreting evidence presented as supporting the position being rejected - WRONG. Similar reasons as option D.

IMO Answer A.

eakabuah · Answer

A is the right answer.

The author begins the argument by stating his/her position that it is not reasonable to search out organic foods as the only natural foods. He defined organic foods as those foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. He went on to provide the reasons why he/she has taken the position that it is unreasonable to refer to organic foods as the only natural foods. These reasons are provided above as the premises for the argument.

We are asked to determine the method of argumentation.

Clearly, it can be seen from the conclusion above that the author starts his argument by defining organic foods as foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. The question one may ask is whether organic foods are simply defined as foods grown without the application of synthetic chemicals. Well, since this definition suits the author, he/she focuses his entire argument on this definition. If there are other definitions and attributes ascribed to organic foods other than the definition provided above, the argument will be flawed, but that is not the bone of contention in this question.

Correct. This is exactly in line with the reasoning provided above.

This argument does not talk about a recommended course of action. Besides, his argument is rather aimed at arguing against searching out organic foods as the only natural foods. Incorrect.

This is completely out of scope. It is not in line with the reasoning provided above on the argument.

No. He is not showing or proving that there a necessary condition that has to be met for a food to deemed as organic. He has rather provided a definition to organic foods in a manner that suits his argument that other foods grown with chemical fertilizers are no different.

This is not how the argument above is made. The author did not reinteprete any evidence above. He instead provide a definition for organic food in a manner that is suitable to his argumentation.

Jawad001 · Answer

(D) showing that a necessary condition for correctly applying the term “organic” is not satisfied

Answer: D

aerograce · Answer

Answer is A.
Original definition of natural: those grown without synthetic chemicals
Changed definition of natural: as long as they produce things through a natural process

Asalways · Answer

chondro48 , Thanks for the explanation. Very useful

Posted from my mobile device

wickedvikram · Answer

I think what's confusing everyone, including me, is the claim that Organic Food is being redefined. However, it's not Organic food rather Natural Food that is being redefined.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It is not reasonable to search out “organic” foods—those grown without

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards