Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce cro

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. - A finding
Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, - A drawback of the finding
and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. - Second drawback of the finding

Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. - intermediate conclusion that states that the finding will not be that useful

However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, - prediction that the finding could be useful after all
the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. - main conclusion that goes against the intermediate conclusion

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first presents a development that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages; the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages.
- the argument seeks to show that the development will have certain advantages and not disadvantages
- the second shows that the development has certain disadvantages
- Wrong

(B) The first presents a development (Correct)that the argument predicts will have a certain impact(Correct - the development will have a positive impact); the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. (Correct, the second states goes against the final prediction that the development will be useful)


(C) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion - (incorrect - the second is an evidence that goes against the main conclusion).

(D) The first is evidence provided to support an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in support of the argument's main conclusion - (the intermediate conclusion goes against the final conclusion); the second is that intermediate conclusion. - (Second is evidence and not an intermediate conclusion)

(E) The first and the second each provide evidence in support of the argument's main conclusion. - (First is a finding and not an evidence. Second is an evidence - it goes against the main conclusion)

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage --- Have used says as a genral practice they have been doing it for some time.
Unfortunately,the seeds themselves are quite expensive, --- A neagtive acknowledgment for the practice stated above.
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. Uncertainity
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. ---Prediction


(A) The first presents a development that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages; the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages.

(B) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain impact; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. correct

(C) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion.

(D) The first is evidence provided to support an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in support of the argument's main conclusion; the second is that intermediate conclusion.

(E) The first and the second each provide evidence in support of the argument's main conclusion.

tanvi9 I sort of understand why you chose B based on the following

"Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage --- Have used says as a genral practice they have been doing it for some time.
Unfortunately,the seeds themselves are quite expensive, --- A neagtive acknowledgment for the practice stated above. "

However, for me, I don't know why it is B as the prediction in the text is that the 'crop plants will be highly resistant to insect damage'. However the second bold says 'the seeds themselves are quite expensive' and this does not, to me, imply a consideration that weights against the prediction that the crop plants will be highly resistant to insect damage. it simply refers to the monetary value.

I do not understand how the answer is B here.
According to me in B,The second boldface does not in any way weigh against the first boldface. First statement talks about Scientist creating plants resistant to plant damage. How does the high price of seed of the same plant weigh against it? I dont even notice a prediction about the impact of these seeds that the second boldface can weigh against

Let me reproduce option (B) and the argument's conclusion below:

(B): The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain impact; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.

Argument: 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.

As per option (B) the second bold face weighs against an impact that is predicted by the argument (and not against the first bold face as mentioned by you). The predicted impact (made in the argument, which the second bold face weighs against) is, in turn, caused by the development detailed by the first bold face.

Now, if we read the question stimulus, the following becomes apparent:

Predicted impact: "...the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread"

Development that has this impact : production of crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage

As we can see, the second bold face weighs against the predicted impact and the first bold face details the development that has this impact - exactly as mentioned in option (B).

Hope this helps.
_________________

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Can you comment on this questions? Why A is wrong? Many tks!

Hi Will

Let us examine option (A):

(A) The first presents a development that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages; the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages.

What this says about the first bold faced option is correct. It does present a development (the production of crop plants which are resistant to insect damage) that the argument says will have certain disadvantages. What these disadvantages are becomes clear on further reading of the passage:

i) "...the seeds themselves are quite expensive..."
ii) "...the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones."

What option (A) says about the second bold faced part is where the problem lies. According to option (A), the second bold faced part "offsets" one of the disadvantages. However, the second bold faced portion talks about the seeds being expensive, which is one of the disadvantages of the development outlined in the first bold faced portion and does not offset any of the disadvantages. Hence this option is incorrect.

Hope this helps.
_________________

svasan05

Which part of the question stimulus is the conclusion?

(i) Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
(ii) 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.

As C is not the correct answer, I'm assuming that the conclusion is (ii), right? If so, what is (i)? How can I categorize it?

Many tks!

Hi Will

This is one of those questions which can be considered to be drawing more than one conclusion - an interim conclusion and a final conclusion.

The interim conclusion is represented by (i) as you have stated - it is only halfway to making the whole argument. The final conclusion of the stimulus is "...the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread".

In this passage, the interim conclusion and the final conclusion oppose each other. Option (C) states "...the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion". However, the second bold faced portion is about the seeds being expensive, which is in support of the interim conclusion and opposite in direction to the final conclusion. It does not support the argument's conclusion as stated in option (C) and hence this option is incorrect.

Hope this helps.
_________________

[quote="BillyZ"]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.



(A) The first presents a development that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages: the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages: it is the other way round, the second statement introduces an disadvantage

(B) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain impact; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction: Bingo

(C) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion: The very least we can say is, the second statement weighs agains the conclusion, so this option is gone

(D) The first is evidence provided to support an intermediate conclusion that is drawn in support of the argument's main conclusion: the second is that intermediate conclusion: the second statement is no conclusion, it is more of a fact

(E) The first and the second each provide evidence in support of the argument's main conclusion: same reasoning as C

Understanding the argument -
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. - Fact
Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. - Facts
Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. - Intermediate conclusion
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. - supporting premise + conclusion

Option Elimination -

(A) The first presents a development (ok) that the argument seeks to show will have certain disadvantages (No. The first statement just presented a fact and doesn't necessarily say that it'll have disadvantages); the second is introduced as a consideration likely to offset one of those disadvantages. (No. As against it presents a disadvantage)

(B) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain impact (ok. The impact is that it'll be more widespread); the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. (ok)

(C) The first supplies a context for the argument (ok); the second is a part of the evidence presented as support for the argument's conclusion. (No. It's against the argument's conclusion, which, by the way, is the main conclusion)

(D) The first is evidence provided to support an intermediate conclusion (No) that is drawn in support of the argument's main conclusion (the IC is against and not for the main conclusion - No); the second is that intermediate conclusion. (No. It is a fact/a disadvantage)

(E) The first and the second each provide evidence in support of the argument's main conclusion. (First - ok, 2nd BF - No)