Most farmers attempting to control slugs and snails turn to baited slu

Time taken 4:20 mins.
1. In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
C. emphasizing the need for an alternative to currently available molluscicides
Final note from author in Para2."there is consider able incentive for researchers to come up with better and environmentally safer solutions."

2. The author suggests that which of following is true of the "alternative compound" mentioned in the highlighted text?
D. It may not be environmentally safer than methiocarb.
"
PAra1:Moreover, slugs are not the only consumers of these poisons: methiocarb may be toxic to a variety of species, including varieties of worms, carabid beetles, and fish.
Para2:as we learn more about the hazards of aluminum in the environment"

3. The author cites which of the following as a disadvantage of methiocarb?
D. It may be toxic to some species of fish.
"methiocarb may be toxic to a variety of species, including varieties of worms, carabid beetles, and fish."

4.The passage suggests that methiocarb and metaldehyde would be more effective as slug poisons if it were true that they
C. begin to affect the feeding behavior of a slug only after it has ingested a lethal dose
"Both chemicals are neurotoxins that disrupt that part of the brain charged with making the mouth move in a coordinated fashion - the "central pattern generator" - as the slug feeds"

Though all the answers are correct but took 12:08 Mins to solve.
Here is my analysis:
Topic: use of pesicides
P1- cites a problem and explains how the poison works. At the end comes the important point that other insect also get affected by it --> So it triggers --> the next paragraph will either provide a solution of this problem or criticize the use of the poison. Let's continue reading the second para.
P2- Provides alternative of the poison but with a limitation and other drawbacks.
Author seems a scientist who also focus on the Env aspect of the research.
----
The passage seems easy and most of the answer choices were out -of-scope, so easy to be eliminated.


---
A lot need to learned from all of you, please help! My verbal score last time was 16.
Regards,
AD

Hello Steinbeck,

Refer to the following lines from the passage:
"Both neurotoxins, while somewhat effective, interfere with the slugs' feeding behavior and limit their ingestion of the poison, increasing the probability that some will stop feeding before receiving a lethal dose."

The statement tells us that the neurotoxins may not be effective ,as some slugs will stop feeding before intake of a lethal dose.

The question talks on how to make neurotoxins more effective?
Pre-Thinking :Neurotoxins will be more effective if they impact the feeding behavior only after the slugs have received a lethal dose

Now Look at the answer choices:
[A] is not mentioned in the passage
[B] If the slugs ability to taste food is reduced then it will not take a lethal dose of neurotoxin so neurotoxins effectiveness will be reduces further.
[C] Makes Sense. This is the expected behavior.
[D] Same problem as option choice B. If neurotoxins reach the central pattern generator more quickly slugs may not intake a lethal dose. The effectiveness of the poison will be reduced farther.
[E] Passage does not mentions anything which will make neurotoxins more effective if they are accumulated only in the Central pattern generator

Took 4 mins 20 seconds , including 2 mins to read the passage .
This is by far one of the easiest GMAT RC passage ever

-The author is not stating an opinion
- The author is discussing efforts that have been made to reduce slug population
-The author believes that there is more that can be done to ensure good control of slug population

1."With farmers losing as much as 20 percent of their crops to slugs and snails even after treatment with currently available molluscicides, there is considerable incentive for researchers to come up with better and environmentally safer solutions."
Answer C

2.
"an alternative compound based on aluminum, which may solve these problems, but this may well have a limited future as we learn more about the hazards of aluminum in the environment."
Answer D

3.
"methiocarb may be toxic to a variety of species, including varieties of worms, carabid beetles, and fish."
Answer D

4.
"Thus, both neurotoxins, while somewhat effective, interfere with the slugs' feeding behavior and limit their ingestion of the poison, increasing the probability that some will stop feeding before receiving a lethal dose."
Answer C

1. In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
C. emphasizing the need for an alternative to currently available molluscicides
" there is consider able incentive for researchers to come up with better and environmentally safer solutions"
D. explaining how molluscicides are used to control slugs and snails
In the 1st paragraph author shows how molluscicides are used to control slugs and snails. In that author also writes about the negative impact that mollusciscides have. In the next paragraph, author talks about an alternative compund and the probable negative impact the alternative compund has.
E. criticizing the use of hazardous material for controlling slugs and snails
Author is not criticizing. He is citing the negative impact mollusciscides have and why alternative to mollusciscides is required : 1. farmers are losing as much as 20 percent of their crops to slugs and snails even after treatment with currently available molluscicides and 2. Mollusciscides have negative impact

GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Can you explain why the answer to Q#1 is not B?

Para 1 summary:
MC and MD: neurotoxins and are harmful even to other species

Para 2 summary:
Alternative: aluminium not good hence scope of additional research.

How safe it is to assert the main purpose of the passage, just on last sentence
as in this.

The author does mention one alternative (aluminum compounds). But the author doesn't actually propose the aluminum idea as a valid solution. Instead, the author describes how it is hazardous to humans and the environment, thus explaining why it is not a safe solution.

So the author doesn't really propose any solutions. And the author certainly does not propose multiple alternatives. Rather, the author suggests that researchers need to come up with better and environmentally safer solutions. Thus, (B) should be eliminated.

The main purpose of a passage is not necessarily the thing that is most discussed in the passage. For example, I might write a letter to a local politician discussing all of the benefits of having green space in cities. I might write 1000 words describing those benefits and then close the letter with, "In conclusion, I would like you to support the new initiative to significantly increase the number of parks in our city."

Most of my letter was about the benefits of green space, but was the purpose of my letter simply to enlighten the politician on the benefits of green space? No. The purpose of my letter was to convince the politician to support the initiative to increase the number of parks.

When thinking about the purpose of each paragraph and of the passage as a whole, you have to ask yourself, "Why is this here? What does the author want me to do/think/believe?" This purpose may well be encapsulated in one little sentence.

I hope that helps!

Dear SajjadAhmad, u1983, GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, workout, Gnpth

because of I can infer slugs will eat crops,

so I think slug will stop eating "CROPs" if they receiving a lethal dose.
while C says after receiving a lethal dose.
that's why I switched to B from C.

please help

thanks a lot

I miss question 1. choice E cover most of the passage and is tricky. but choice e dose not cover all passage. the last sentence talk about the incentive to make new material. so, only criticizing is not cover all the passage.

the passage is about criticizing and incentive, so, choice C cover both these ideas and, so, is correct

this is hard.

Dear SajjadAhmad, u1983, GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, workout, Gnpth
I am still confused ... please help

hello GMATNinja GMATNinja
can you explain the second question?
I'm quite confused of "may not be". Is it mean that this information need us to infer?

Posted from my mobile device

My take to solve this question:
Suggest: Something that is implied but not stated directly ; can be argued
Infer: something that can be deduced from the statements

As this question asks about suggestion on alternative compound, the statement indicates that it may not be safer solution . Else why do you think the author make such a statement. I can not be 100% but this statement implies/indicates that this solution is still not satisfactory , why ? It may be because it is not-environmental safer.
there is considerable incentive for researchers to come up with better and environmentally safer solutions.

Question 2

The question asks us what the author suggests about the "alternative compound" discussed in the second paragraph of the passage. As usual, the best way to go through this problem is to use process of elimination on the answer choices.

So, which answer choice is suggested by the author of the passage?
The compounds discussed in the passage are meant to be used against BOTH snails and slugs. We're never told whether one of these critters is more effectively destroyed than the other. So, the author never suggests that the alternative compound is more effective against snails than slugs.

Eliminate (A).

Remember that the question asks about the alternative compound, which is discussed in the second paragraph. We never learn about how this new compound impacts slugs' feeding behavior. The only mention of feeding behavior is in reference to the molluscicide poisons discussed in the first paragraph.

Eliminate (B).

Again, we only hear about fish in the first paragraph, when the author tells us that "methiocarb [...] may be toxic to fish." So, we really have no idea how either metaldehyde OR the alternative compound affect fish.

(C) is out.

The author says that the alternative compound "may solve" the environmental problems of methiocarb and metaldehyde. However, he/she goes on to say that the alternative compound "may well have a limited future as we learn more about the hazards of aluminum in the environment." The author then lists some pretty serious potential drawbacks of the alternative compound -- it may kill trees and cause Alzheimer's disease. Yikes!

The author never directly compares how bad the alternative compound is to how bad methiocarb and metaldehyde are. That's where the exact language of the question and answer choice becomes important -- even though there isn't a black-and-white comparison, we can say that the author suggests that the new stuff may not be safer than the old stuff.

Keep (D) for now.

The only mention of trees is in the second paragraph, when the author implies that the alternative compound may actually kill trees. So, the author certainly doesn't suggest that the alternative compound is LESS damaging to trees than are the other compounds.

(E) is out, and (D) is the correct answer to question 2.

I hope that helps!

why c for the 4th question and not d?