Letter to the editor: Organic farming does not contaminate soil and

Question

Letter to the editor:

Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.  However,  since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.  Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?

A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.

B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.

C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.

D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.

E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.

sayan640 · Accepted Answer

The author says that the organic farming is bad .
He opposes to the view that the organic farming is good.
"Makes a concession " means show some merits .
The first statement shows some merits to the argument that the organic farming is good which is opposed by the author. The first statement says one good point about the organic farming.
The second statement starts with the "premise" marker "since" and is indeed a premise to the conclusion that the organic farming is not that great.
A is answer. 
 MartyMurray

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

You've nailed exactly what's going on.

Nice work.

MartyMurray · Answer

Letter to the editor:

Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.  However,  since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.  Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

The passage opens with a statement about organic farming, one that presents a benefit of organic farming:

Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.

That statement is followed by the contrast word "however," which introduces a contrasting fact about organic farming, one that involves a drawback of organic farming:

since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.

Then, the next statement expands on that contrasting statement providing more details about organic farming requiring more land:

Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates.

Finally, the passage ends with the following main conclusion that's supported by the preceding two statements:

organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment

So, in summary, the passage opens with a statement that contrasts with everything else said and closes with a main conclusion that follows from statements that contrast with the first statement.

Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?

This question is a Boldface question, and the correct answer will accurately describe the roles of the two boldfaced portions of the passage.

A. The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.

"A concession to the view that the argument opposes" means, basically, "information presented in the context of an argument that supports a conclusion that the argument opposes." So, we see that the first boldfaced portion is correct because it supports the conclusion that organic farming is better for the environment, which the argument presented by the passage basically opposes.

The second part of this choice is also correct because the second boldfaced portion is a premise that supports the main conclusion "organic farmion is not necessarily better for the environment." After all, the fact "since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food," indicates that organic farming is not necesarily better for the environment.

So, both parts of this choice are correct.

Keep.

B. The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.

This choice is tricky because it's partially correct. After all, the first boldfaced portion does identify a benefit of organic farming, and the second identifies a potential drawback of organic farming.

At the same time this choice has a failure point in that organic farming is not "a course of action that the argument recommends." Rather, the argument supports the conclusion that "organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."

Eliminate.

C. The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.

The first does not present a position the argument seeks to establish but, rather, presents a fact that the rest of the passage is in contrast to.

Also, the second does not challenge the first. In other words, it does not indicate that the first is not true. Rather, it says something that contrasts with the first without challenging the first.

Eliminate.

D. The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.

The first boldfaced portion presents a fact that could be used to support the position that organic farming is better for the environment. So, while the first is not exaclty "an argument," we could potentially argue that the first part of this choice is correct.

At the same time, the second clearly is not an assumption supporting the position supported by the first, that organic farming is better for the environment. In fact, the second supports a contrasting position, that organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

Eliminate.

E. The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.

Notice that the first boldface portion does not state a conclusion that the letter writer opposes. After all, the letter writer never says anything against "Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does." Rather, the author states as fact that organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals and then indicates that, even though that fact is true, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

Accordingly, the second does not  contradict  the first, meaning it doesn't go against the first. Rather, it  contrasts  with the first and supports a conclusion that's true even though the first is true.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  A

Robo_123 · Answer

Can you please share more insights on what premise markers are and some more ways to identify them? Facing challenges in boldface.

egmat · Answer

Premise markers are words/phrases that signal evidence, reasons, or support. 
They tell you:  "Here's WHY you should believe something"  or  "Here's the EVIDENCE."

Common Premise Markers 
 Direct Premise Markers (Signal Reasons): 
 
 Because / Since / As / For 
 Given that 
 After all 
 The reason is that 
 For the reason that  
 Evidence Introduction Markers (Signal Data/Facts): 
 
 Experts estimate/say/claim 
 Studies show/indicate 
 Research reveals 
 Evidence suggests / Data indicates 
 According to / Based on  
 Supporting Information Markers (Signal Backup): 
 
 This is supported by 
 This is evident from 
 As indicated by / As shown by 
 Given the fact that 
 In light of

Finding Premises Without Markers 
Not all premises have explicit markers. Use these two tests:

Test 1: The "Why?" Test  
 Find the conclusion first, then ask "WHY should I believe this?" 
Whatever answers "why" = your premise
 Example: 
Conclusion: "Organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."
Ask WHY? → "Because it requires 10 million square miles of additional forest"
✓ That's your premise

Test 2: The "What Does This Prove?" Test
   Read a statement and ask "What does this prove or support?" 
If it proves something else = it's a premise for that thing
 Example: 
Statement: "10 million square miles of forest would be needed."
What does this prove? → Organic has major environmental costs
What does THAT prove? → Organic isn't necessarily better
✓ So this is a premise

Your Step-by-Step Process for Boldface Questions
 
 Step 1: Read the Entire Argument First 
 
 Don't analyze boldfaced parts in isolation 
 Understand the full logical flow 
 Note any structural signals ("however," "therefore," "but")

Step 2: Identify the Main Conclusion 
 
 Look for conclusion markers: "therefore," "thus," "so," "hence" 
 Ask:  "What's the ultimate point being made?"   
 Step 3: Map the Argument Structure 
Before analyzing boldface, understand the flow:
 
 What comes before the conclusion? (Usually premises) 
 What introduces evidence? (Look for premise markers) 
 Where do shifts occur? (Look for "however," "but," "although")

Step 4: Test Each Boldface Portion 
For each boldfaced part, ask these questions:

A. Is this a conclusion or support? 
 
 Does it MAKE a claim that needs proof? → Likely a conclusion 
 Does it PROVIDE proof for something else? → Likely a premise

B. Does it support the author's view or oppose it? 
 
 Supports the conclusion → premise or intermediate conclusion 
 Opposes the conclusion → counter-premise or concession

C. How do the two boldfaced parts relate? 
 
 Work together? (Both support same conclusion) 
 Work against each other? (One opposes, one supports) 
 Sequential? (One leads to the other)

Quick Application: Our Example

Argument:  "Organic farming does not contaminate soil... However, since organic farming is only half as productive... experts estimate 10 million square miles of forest would be needed. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."

Apply the process: 
 Step 1 - Read fully:  Structure flows from concession → counter-evidence → conclusion
 Step 2 - Find conclusion:  "Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better"
 Step 3 - Map structure: 
 
 "Does not contaminate" comes before "However" (signals concession) 
 "10M square miles needed" comes after evidence markers and before "Therefore" (signals premise)  
 Step 4 - Test each boldface: 
 First boldface:  "Does not contaminate"
 
 Is it conclusion or support? Makes a claim (organic is good) 
 Does it support author's view? NO—author says organic isn't necessarily better 
 Role:  Concession  (acknowledging opposing view)  
 Second boldface:  "10M square miles needed"
 
 Is it conclusion or support? Provides evidence 
 Does it support author's view? YES—shows organic has costs 
 Role:  Premise  (evidence supporting conclusion)  
 Answer: A  - First makes a concession; second is a premise

Letter to the editor: Organic farming does not contaminate soil and

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

Letter to the editor: Organic farming does not contaminate soil and

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