Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce cro

This is a very good one. I almost fell for C as well. I reread C though and something just didnt seem right.

The end of the paragraph is def. the main conclusion. Thus only D captures this.

try to diagram the argument, numbering each of the sentences and using the 'THEREFORE TEST' (try 'x, therefore y' and 'y, therefore x', and see which, if either, of them makes sense).

1 Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2 Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3 Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4 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.

the structure of this argument is:
1 = background fact
2, therefore 3
however, 4 (which weakens conclusion 3)

if you figure out that much, then it's clear that #3 is the CONCLUSION. (that's the single most important thing you can do on critical reasoning: figure out what's the conclusion.)

since neither of the boldface portions is the conclusion, choice a and choice d are dead. (both of those claim that the second part is the conclusion.)

now, analyze the boldface parts a little better:
#2 (the first boldface) serves as a premise for #3
#4 (the second bold) serves as a counterpoint to #3, weakening the lasting value of the conclusion
...which is basically what choice c says.

choice b is tempting, but you should note that the argument is specifically designed to point out that this 'state of affairs' CAN affect the outcome. choice e is nonsensical, as the two boldfaces are on completely opposite sides of the proverbial fence.

(Source: Ron Purewal)

Another bad CR question. People are saying the second half of C is wrong, when the first half of D is even more wrong.

" the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones" is not an outcome... The sentence after that is the outcome. I can see why C is wrong, but D is also wrong. Maybe the test makers fell asleep on this question.

It is an outcome of "Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage."
They have created seeds that are resistant to insect damage. The outcome of modifying the seeds is that these modified seeds are expensive and need more fertilizer and water.

You cannot brush aside official questions as bad questions. Try to understand what is going on. You could get something very similar on your test too.

D is the correct answer.

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage - General Information
Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones - Premise by the author
Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer - Intermediate conclusion by author
However,since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise - Premise by author
the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread- Main conclusion by athor

Fist BF statement is a premise that provide a conclusion - savings would be less. So, if BF is applicable, a consequence or an outcome happens in result. Second BF is a prediction by author. And it supports main conclusion

Responding to a pm:



The conclusion of the argument is the author's opinion. It is the reason he writes the argument. I disagree with the explanation provided in the link above. The conclusion of this argument is "their use will keep increasing" - that is the final word of the author. He starts by giving the drawbacks but provides a reason which he believes will overshadow the drawbacks and arrives at the conclusion that the use of genetically modified seeds will keep increasing.

"Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer." is a prediction based on the drawbacks he discusses, not the conclusion of the argument.

(C) is wrong as discussed above.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
Wrong - second is not a consideration against the prediction. Prediction is about saving money by using modified seeds. Just because people like modified seeds, farmers won't save money by using them i.e. the cost will not go down. Note that the revenue farmers earn may increase because people like these seeds but the cost of using them will not decrease.

(D) is correct
(D) The first provides a certain outcome that the agrument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion.

The argument says "their use will keep increasing". The argument weighs against the drawbacks in the first three lines.
The second bold face supports the main conclusion.

Here are the steps I take to arrive at D:

1) We identify the conclusion.
Conclusion: the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

2) We identify the role of first bold statement and second bold statement for the conclusion.
First bold statement: premise against the conclusion. If the seeds are expensive and more fertilisers are required, farmers will don't have enough incentive to use genetically engineered seeds.
Second bold statement: premise for.

Please change the OA , correct answer is C . It is OG19 question Q553. Bunuel please check.

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. (A) Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. (B) Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. (C) However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, (D) the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread. (E)

In my opinion, the list below contains the basic elements of the argument:
A is background information
B is a fact
C is a prediction
D is a fact
E is the main conclusion

(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. the first part seems good as it indeed is the basis for the prediction C: higher expenses will not help farmers gain any benefit from using such seeds; the second also looks fine: but the demand will potentially drive up prices for the seeds; so D counters the prediction C
(D) The first provides a certain outcome that the argument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion. I would argue that the first BF is a fact, and not an outcome. Outcome can be considered the next sentence, or (C) above.

I'm aware of the explanation given by VeritasKarishma. However, I'd very much appreciate some comments from other experts. Could you please point a flaw in my reasoning?

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo gmat1393 nightblade354

Thanks

jawele, the second part of C supports the argument. It says consumer demand will rise, not prices. Where did you read anything about price increases?

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma could you possibly verify the answer?

I found this prompt in the GMAT™ Official Practice Questions in which it is stated that the correct answer is C. Thank you.

[url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=Xin] @xin_cho - Please share a screenshot of the exact question you came across and the correct option. Slight variations can change the answer completely.

VeritasKarishma thank you for the reply. The first sentence is exactly the same but the rest is quite different - I wasn't aware that official GMAT questions would vary like this. Interesting.

You could come across variations in official questions. Sometimes, for different questions, different statements of the same argument will be in bold. The answer options then may be same or different but the answer would be different.

Can someone please explain what is wrong with option C? I have gone through all explanations here but still can't understand.

The first boldface is a counter-premise and second boldface is premise

IMO D

[url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=VeritasKarishma]VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Can you comment on this different version of the question? OG 2020 - Q 635:

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. Accordingly, 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.

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

A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.

B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that, according to the argument, contributes to bringing about that outcome.

C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that tends to weigh against that prediction.

D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.

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

OA: C

Why A is wrong? Many tks!