Imo C
D and E can be ruled out safely
A is out because the argument gives a judgement not context.
B is also out

Sent from my ONE E1003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

The conclusion is :- Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. It starts with "thus" conclusion marker.

"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" --> This sentence weakens the conclusion...

Since neither of the boldfaced parts is the conclusion , option A is out.

So option C is correct.

Only option A and C are close.

VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry GMATNinja.. Is my explanation correct ?

Hi

Can anyone please comment in the light of this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/plant-scient ... 65010.html I agree that it's broad, but the gist of the post is that the second BF can be the main conclusion of the argument. So why is A wrong? There must be something tangible, concrete in order to eliminate it, and right now I don't see clearly why A should be out. Moreover, is this really a GMATprep question, or it's just a some kind of recreation using the information of an official material?

Thanks

gmat1393 GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo nightblade354

This was reproduced incorrectly, which is why people are picking A. The boldface here encompasses more of the text that the official version of this question.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi jawele,

For a Bold face CR both the parts of the option should be correct.

Option A is a typical incorrect option pattern in which one part is right and the other part is not.
First part of option A is wrong since the first bolded part does not provide context for the argument rather it presents a circumstance that the argument is against of.

Hope this helps!

Hi gmat1393

Thanks for getting to my question. I beg to differ about the first BF. I disagree that "it presents a circumstance that the argument is against of" as you claim. The author disagrees with the portion that "Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer." Though true that it may not compensate, the author introduces additional information that shows that it can be profitable.

The author, I feel that it's reasonable to assume so, agrees with first BF because I can't find his disagreement with the claim that "the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones". And since the author agrees with that BF, it can be said that it provides the context for the argument. In particular, the fact that although "the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones", "consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, [so] the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread".

Please comment

HI GMATNinja, generis, VeritasPrepErika

Can you throw some light on this Boldfaced question?
_________________

If anyone sees this specific version of the question in the GMAT Prep software, please let us know whether it has been transcribed accurately.

In the meantime, please refer to this similar question, which is definitely an official question from the GMAT Prep software.
_________________

is not completely right because of following 2 reasons:
1. The first supplies a context for the argument
context for argument is in the first sentence: Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2. the second is the argument's main conclusion. : main conclusion is part of 2nd bold statement, the whole statement is not main conclusion


development: the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones
will have a certain outcome: for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
2nd: is against the prediction ( that genetic seeds would not be grown)