Check the GMAT OFFICIAL GUIDE 2020 -question no-635 !
The answer given is C ! For the same question!

Posted from my mobile device

Whenever you read an argument, break it down into its components - context, premises, conclusion.

The argument starts with some context:
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.

Gives some considerations (against his conclusion):
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.

Gives the flip-side consideration (in favour of his conclusion):
However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise

and then arrives at his conclusion:
Conclusion - the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

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

First is alright but the second is NOT the main conclusion.


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.
Correct. The first is a 'development' (scientists have made seeds resistant to damage) that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome (use of these seeds will become widespread)
The second is a consideration against this prediction. "savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs" is against "the use of these seeds will become widespread"

Answer (C)[/quote]

Thank you @VeristasKarishma! Great explanation!

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

I got the answer right, but I the find wordings in the options very complicated

For ex. Option B says - The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.

a) What do we mean by "a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome.." Can i say that the fist BF predicts that the farmers may not use the seeds?

b) What doe we mean by "state of affairs"? What is the argument denying here?

Could you please help me figure out how can i comprehend these wordings?

Boldface and Method questions often use formal logic language. Practice some more such questions to make yourself comfortable with it.

Whenever you read an argument, break it down into its components - context, premises, conclusion.

The argument starts with some context:
Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.

Gives some considerations (against his conclusion):
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.

Gives the flip-side consideration (in favour of his conclusion):
However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise

and then arrives at his conclusion:
Conclusion - the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

Option B says - The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.

development - Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage

a certain outcome - the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

a state of affairs - for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer

The argument does not deny that this state of affairs will not be a part of the outcome. The argument concedes that this state of affairs will happen but demand is increasing. That is why the outcome in purple above will happen.
_________________

VeritasKarishma

Though I chose the write answer (D), I'd like to be concrete on why (C) is wrong. And I haven't figured it out yet.

Going by the explanation given by you above for (C) , both (C) and (D) will be INVALID

(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.

First Statement Explanation
Development: Seeds are expensive, Fertilizers and Water required is more.
Outcome: Increase in costs.

These paramaters make the First Statement agreeable.

Second Statement Explanation
Consideration: Demand will rise.
Even though demand rises, the cost will remain the same. So the second doesn't weigh against First.

We can reject (C).
I agree with you. But If I am using the same parameters to evaluate Option (D), It doesn't suit very well.

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

First Statement: Explanation
Outcome: Increase in costs. (same as in Option (C))
The argument doesn't seek to weigh against increase in costs. It accepts it as such.

Thus, the same parameters for (C) & (D) dont work.

If I change the definition of outcome as SEEDS NOT BECOMING WIDESPREAD, as inferred by you in this post, for both options (C) & (D), both become VALID

(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.

First Statement: Explanation
Development: Seeds are expensive, Fertilizers and Water required is more.
Outcome: The seeds cause Increase in costs, so argument predicts that they may not be widespread

These parameters make First Statement agreeable.

Second Statement: Explanation
Consideration: Demand will rise.
Since there will be demand, we can expect them to be widespread. The second statement acknowleges a consideration(rise in demand) that weighs against the prediction(Seeds Not widespread).

These parametes make Second Statmenet Agreeable.

Thus (C) becomes Valid.


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

First Statement: Explanation
Outcome: Seeds Not widespread (same as in Option (C))
The argument seek to weigh against the outcome saying the seeds will be widespread.

These parametes make First Statmenet Agreeable.

Second Statement Explanation.
Consideration: Rise in Demand.
This supports the main conclusion that Seeds will be widespread.

These parametes make Second Statmenet Agreeable.

The parameter used for the Outcome(Not widespread) makes both (C) & (D) valid in this case.

I request you to throw some light on this.

You cannot relate the options with each other. Each option must be seen independently. We need to relate the various terms within one option only.
The five options describe the first boldface using 4 different terms - context, development, outcome, evidence
The first BF statement can be correctly described using any of these four words. The point is how it relates to rest of the description given in the option.

More to the point, as done in option (C), it can be described as a development (scientists developed insect resistant seeds which are expensive). This development will have an outcome (farmers' cost will go up)

Alternatively, as done in option (D), the first BF can be an outcome - the fact that the seeds are quite expensive can be called an outcome of scientists developing insect resistant seeds - which implies that they may not be used widely. The argument is seeking to weigh against it.


The terms are related to each other only when they are used in the same option.
(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.

Here, the outcome in the first highlighted part must be the same as the prediction in the second highlighted part.
_________________

VeritasKarishma Thank you for your response. I agree that each option shouldn't be related with each other. Each option must be evaluated in its own realm.

But If I am to interpret Option (C) in the following way, where would you say I am wrong?

(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 BF presents a development done by the scientists(they developed insect resistant seeds which are expensive) and the argument PREDICTS the outcome as "Seeds not being widespread".
(Expensive Seeds-->Costs rise up--> Ultimately Seeds not widespread)

(I have arrived at this outcome through the same line of reasoning that you have provided below for (D)..)


The second BF does acknowlege a consideration(Consumer demand continues to rise) that weighs against that prediction in first BF..(THAT Prediction being "Seeds not widespread")

The Prediction that I use for First Statement and second statement is same, that the seeds will not be widespread.
Let me know where my logic falters in the above explanation for (C).

Many thanks!

Nothing wrong with it. There are two versions of this question on this thread.
Here answer is (C):
https://gmatclub.com/forum/plant-scient ... l#p2460382
_________________

Hope it helps!

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Karishma I was analysing your reply to this post above. If as you argue the outcome is the seeds are expensive the argument does not weight against this. As your argue in an earlier post, the argument argues that these seeds will likely become widespread. In other words, the argument says nothing about the cost of the seeds themselves and whether this will prevent their adoption.

VeritasKarishma

MPRS22

I am not sure exactly what your question is. I assume it has something to do with whether the first part of (D) is correct. It is correct.

Hope you know that there are two versions of the question floating around in this thread. If you are looking at this:

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
- Scientists did something

Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
- Outcome of that was that the seeds became expensive.

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

- Overall financially, it may not make sense for farmers to use it.

However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise,

- But people demand it for other reasons (health). (So perhaps the sale price will increase.)

the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

Conclusion. Finally, by giving a counterpoint to the financial angle, the author arrives at her conclusion.

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

The argument seeks to weigh against the outcome. He concedes that seeds are expensive (so farmers may not want to use them) but he claims that consumer demand for these crops continues to rise and hence, use of these seeds by farmers will become widespread (despite their high cost to them).
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma

(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.

For 1st part, The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome
I read it into 2 parts:
The first presents a development that the argument predicts --> can i reject this part because here development is not what is predicted in the argument. It means the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones is not prediction.
The first presents a development will have a certain outcome--> this seems ok. this development will have a certain outcome, an outcome that for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.

for 2nd part I am clear
2nd part can also be rejected because 2nd part doesn't weight against prediction but starts a new point .
prediction: savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilize
2nd bold doesn't add about savings but brings a new source of revenue.



please suggest for part1 can be rejected for C for original question

Thanks VeritasKarishma

(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome;

What does this mean? It means the first bold statement presents a development.

What is the role played by this development in the argument? The argument predicts that this development will have a certain outcome.

It does not mean that the first bold statement presents a development predicted by the argument. The development has already happened. It is not predicted by the argument.
The argument predicts that the development (that has happened) will have a certain outcome.


(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.

Developments - Seeds are expensive and need more fertiliser and water.
Predicted Outcome (Prediction) - For most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer

Second bold statement: consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise

Is it a consideration against the prediction above? No. For most farmers savings on pesticides will not compensate for higher costs of these seeds. "Consumer demand continues to rise" is not against this prediction.
It weighs against "farmers will not use these seeds" but not against "for farmers savings will not compensate for higher costs". If farmers get more returns from these crops because of increasing demand, they may still choose to use these seeds. But higher demand does not weigh against higher production cost.
_________________

Now I know why C is wrong. This option was very close to the right option:)

Thanks for clarifying !!

Solution

Passage Analysis

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
Context. Fact. Situation. Premise

Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
Boldface 1. Fact. Issues listed. Counter premise

Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
Claim. Prediction. Opinion. Counter premise. Intermediate conclusion.

However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise,
Premise. Against the direction of IC. Observation. Fact.

the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread
Main conclusion. Claim based on above observation.

Question Stem Analysis

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
This is a typical boldface question where we need to identify the roles of the 2 boldened parts of the argument.

Prethinking

BF1
the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
Fact
Relation to MC: Against the direction of MC.
Relation to BF2: Against the direction of BF2

Bf2
since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise,
Fact
Relation to MC: Same direction as main conclusion
Relation to BF1: Opposite direction to BF1.

Answer Choice Analysis

The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
INCORRECT
It is fine to say the first supplies context for the argument. But BF2 is not the 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 the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
INCORRECT
A development is a fact/situation. Hence it is fine to call BF1 a development. Statement 3 is the mentioned outcome. BF2 is a fact and a situation; hence it is correct to term it state of affairs. But the argument does not deny it to be a part of the outcome in statement 3. Statement 3 talks about high cost for farmers while BF2 talks about demand. Hence it is an incorrect choice.

(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.
INCORRECT
As mentioned in option B, BF1 is a development with statement 3 as outcome – BF1 is correct. BF2 does acknowledge a consideration, but it does not weigh against Statement 3 even though the two statements are in different directions. Statement 3 talks about the costs incurred by farmers. BF2 does not go against the prediction that farmers will not be able to save money by using GM seeds – it talks about a different aspect. Hence this option is incorrect.

(D) The first provides a certain outcome that the argument seeks to weigh against; the second is a consideration that support the main conclusion.
CORRECT
BF1 gives a statement that is against the main conclusion. BF2, as we prethought, supports the main conclusion. Hence this option is a correct answer choice.

(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
INCORRECT
BF1 does not support the main conclusion even though BF2 does. Hence option E is incorrect.
_________________