Vyshak wrote:
Crops can be purged of insects by introducing insects sterilized artificially by radiation; the sterilized male insects of a particular species are released to mingle with a natural population and mate with females who fail to have offspring, thereby inhibiting the ability of the local population of that species to reproduce. A new technique of sterilizing the medfly makes the sterilized male medflies exceptionally attractive to the females, so that a local population can be wiped out completely. But complete extermination might bring new risks. A farmer who considers his plot exceptionally attractive to medflies might think that his plot is the perfect case in which to use the new, more powerful, sterilized insect technique, but he should consider that _______________.
Which of the following most logically completes the argument above?
A) he might produce an overly abundant crop, driving down his own prices and profit
B) perhaps the risk that the new insect sterilization does not work at all, since it has been less proven through practice, is not worth the additional benefit, at this point
C) releasing radiated insects into the wild could have effects on the environment, and possibly the farmer's crop, that would be impossible to trace
D) his plot, already exceptionally abundant, might already produce more crops than he can sell at ideal prices, and the additional cost of the new technique would be wasted
E) his plot might be exceptionally attractive also to another species of insect for which no sterilized insect method exists and which might thrive on the plot once the competing medflies have been eliminated
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:
Reading the question: this question, like Auto Body and Expert Virus, asks us for a logical continuation of the prompt. Our completion must be in line with both the facts and the relevant opinions in the prompt.
Creating a filter: we pay special attention to the emotionally charged phrases "perfect case" and "he should consider." The "perfect case" describes the viewpoint of the farmer, while "he should consider" describes the viewpoint not of the farmer, but of the author of the paragraph. From those two fragments alone, we can infer that what goes in the blank will be a reason the new technique might not work or be so good for this farmer. Can we be more specific? Indeed: the author says "there are risks." So the correct answer will probably highlight a risk that the farmer may have overlooked.
Applying the filter: choice (A) gives a risk, though it is not exactly a continuation of the passage, since it brings in new concepts, prices and profit. Choice (B) contradicts the data we have been given, which tells us that the technique will do what it's designed to do. Choice (C) describes a new risk, so it passes the filter. Choice (D), like (B), contradicts data we are given to work with, namely, that the farmer considers his plot ideal. Choice (E) describes a risk of this new technique, so it passes the filter.
Logical proof: we are down to choices (C) and (E). Can we establish that one is better? Yes: the author says that "complete extermination might bring new risks." Choice (E) is specifically a risk of complete extermination, whereas (C) is not. When you're trying to decide between two answer choices, look for a critical detail that makes one objectively superior to the other.
The correct answer is (E).
close
23 Feb 2017, 23:20
33%
(02:29)
wrong 
