Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide again

The question is discussed in details on previous TWO pages. Please read.

Understanding the passage

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year.

• Planting of cotton, which is bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, sustained little bollworm damage.
• Bollworms are a major cause of crop failure.
• These cotton plantations have barely suffered any damage from bollworms in the past.
• But this year has been different.

This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms.

• This year the damage to the plantings due to bollworms is severe compared to previous years, even though bioengineered cotton was planted.

Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide.

• However, it is not necessarily true that bollworms have developed resistance to the cotton's insecticide

Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.

• Bollworms reproduce on corn.
• Last year, the quantity of cotton planted throughout the cotton-growing regions was more than usual.

So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

• Therefore, it is probable that the insecticide in cotton plantings is unable to fight off the increased infestation of bollworms raised on the increased quantity of corn.

Conclusion: According to the author, the cotton plantings are suffering severe bollworm damage because the plantings are not able to fight off the increased infestation of bollworms raised on corn and not because bollworms have developed resistance to the insecticide.

Pre-thinking

Falsification Scenario

In what scenario – will the increased infestation of corn-bred bollworms not be responsible for the severe damage to cotton plantings this year?
Given that:
(i) Plantings of cotton are bioengineered such that they produce their own insecticide against bollworms.
(ii) These cotton plantations have barely suffered any damage from bollworms in the past.
(iii) Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.

Thought Process

According to the author, planting cotton, which is bioengineered to stop bollworm infestation worked well until recently. Bollworms severely damaged this year's cotton plantings.
Since more cotton was planted throughout the cotton-growing regions and bollworms reproduce in corn, the insecticide in cotton plantings is unable to fight off the increased number of bollworms.

Falsification condition: What if the effectiveness of the bioengineered insecticides was lowered due to some other factors?
If due to environmental factors or due to changes in the soil, the effectiveness or potency of the insecticides has dropped, then the cause for additional damage to cotton plantings will not be due to increased bollworms. This condition would break the author's conclusion.

Assumption: The effectiveness of the bioengineered insecticides was lowered.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide INCORRECT
• This option talks about a future possibility which has nothing to do with the current situation. At present, it is a fact that bollworms thrive on corn. Therefore, this option is incorrect.


(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year CORRECT
• If the cotton planting that does not produce insecticide is suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, then the insecticide effectiveness/potency has reduced in the cotton plantings that produce insecticides. This is alone the lines of our pre-thinking assumption.
• Variance test
o Yes - plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
o Effectiveness or potency of the insecticides in cotton planting has reduced; this strengthens our belief in the conclusion.
o No - plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
o Effectiveness or potency of the insecticides in cotton planting has not reduced; this weakens our belief in the conclusion.
o Therefore, this is the correct choice.

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them INCORRECT
• The findings of this evaluation question will not help us because it not necessary that successful resistance to pests of other crops would mean that cotton crops will also successfully resist pests. Thus, this choice is incorrect.



(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms INCORRECT
• The bioengineered plantings can fight off bollworms. Whether it is effective against any other insect pests or not, will not answer the question as to why this year the plantings are unable to fight off the bollworms.
• Thus, this choice is incorrect.


(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton INCORRECT
• The passage talks about the present scenario where some insecticides have failed to fight off bollworm infestation. The use of other insecticides is not pertinent to the passage. This information is outside the scope of the passage and, therefore, is the incorrect choice.

Just sharing a personal perspective on this question.
As it is an evaluation problem, all the options are starting with the word "whether". The correct answer should strengthen or weaken the presented argument.
However, most replies think the conclusion of the argument is "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.". In my view, this "conclusion" is also an assumption, the same with the one that "Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide ", given both of the two statements are not in a affirmative tone. So, why don't we take the two assumption together as the argument's main point.
Then, let's look at the correct answer B.
<Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year>

If the answer is YES, it strengthens the two assumptions of the argument together. It may be the bollworms that produce resistance to the insecticide or it is because cotton is simply overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.
If the answer is NO, it just weakens the two assumptions simultaneously, but propose other possibilities, which is not mentioned by the argument, because neither one of the two assumption could help to explain it.

In this way, B seems more rational than other options.

Hi GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

The given argument talks about plantings of cotton bioengineered...And the follow-up also mentions "THE" plantings. That means it refers to the bioengineered plantings only. Then why are we considered non-bioengineered plantings? What gives the confirmation that they were also present together?

The argument talks about insecticide producing cotton. To evaluate whether insecticide is effective or not, we will compare it with non-insecticide producing cotton. It is relevant. Just because the argument does not mention it, we cannot say that we should ignore the option. They may not be present together but we cannot say that all cotton has been converted to insecticide producing cotton. When the option is telling us that we should compare the two, it means there are fields of regular cotton too.
Whether a new piece of info is relevant or not needs to be evaluated in every question. Something about say jute may not be relevant here.

This is An Evaluate the Argument type of question. This type of question requires us to identify information (an additional premise) that will help us decide whether the given conclusion is valid or not. So, the additional piece of information may either strengthen or weaken the conclusion.

The conclusion of the argument is that it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.
The argument provides the following pieces of information:
-bollworms are a major cause of crop failure
-plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms sustained hardly any damage from bollworms until this year
-this year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms
-however, the damage is not necessarily because bollworms are developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide
-bollworms breed on corn
-last year, more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions

We are looking for information to understand the reason that the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. One reason could be that bollworms have developed a resistance to the plantings, but that reason is more or less ruled out by the passage by the statement that bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. The reason provided by the passage is that the cotton is likely simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

Option A provides a way in which the bollworm problem can be handled, but does not provide information to show whether the problem is indeed because of the corn-bred bollworms. So, Option A can be eliminated.

The argument states that the bioengineered plantings of cotton sustained hardly any damage until this year. It is only this year that they are being seriously damaged by bollworms. This option does not provide information to clarify whether the damage is caused by corn-bred bollworms. Other plants are irrelevant to the argument. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

The passage deals with damage caused by bollworms; other pests are not relevant to the argument. Since this option mentions other pests, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E mentions a way to solve the problem, especially if the problem is caused by bollworms developing resistance to the bio-engineered plantings. This option does not provide information to validate the likelihood that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Option B provides information that would help to clarify whether the damage is caused by corn-bred bollworms.
The passage states that last year, more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions and that bollworms breed on corn.
If there is more corn and therefore more bollworm infestation due to the corn in the cotton-growing regions, the bollworms could infest the cotton plantings too. And if it is throughout the cotton-growing regions, the pest would also affect the non-bio-engineered plantings of cotton.
So then, if plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, it is likely that the damage is indeed caused by corn-bred bollworms.
If the plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, then it is not likely that the damage is cause by the corn-bred bollworms.
So, this option would be helpful in evaluating the argument. Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Conclusion: it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
This is irrelevant to the question. We need to focus on why the current circumstances are the way they are. This provides a solution to the problem at hand, but doesn’t clarify if we could evaluate the author’s assertion within the conclusion. (TY @GMATninja)

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
The argument essentially states the following: Bollworms breed on a bunch of corn (and corn was super plentiful last year); thus, the cotton w/ insecticide is damaged by these bollworms. This answer choice essentially removes an alternative choice. If the answer to this question is YES, then it makes sense that these bollworms are just bleeding over into the crops next to it, further strengthening the argument. If the answer to this question is NO, then it weakens the argument b/c it becomes mysterious as to why the cotton w/ insecticide are damaged but NOT the other cotton.

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
Common trap w/ the comparison of some other thing/entity/organization. This is irrelevant to the current circumstances with the cotton w/ insecticides and corn.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
Out of scope – we are concerned about “the plantings [that] are being seriously damaged by bollworms.”

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton
This is irrelevant to the question. Why was the cotton damaged this past year though? This doesn’t help evaluate the CURRENT argument. This could provide a solution (just as A does).

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

P : cottons bioengineered sustained little damage until now.
P : This year cottons are seriously damaged
P : Bollworms are not developing resistance.
P : More corn with Bollworms was planted last year near cotton plantings.
C : bioengineered cottons are simply being overwhelmed by the population of corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would it be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
-> Irrelevant. The argument is concentrating in bioengineered cotton and bollworms.

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
-> Correct. If normal plantings of cotton were more severely damaged than bioengineered plantings, we can conclude that insecticides work as intended.

C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
-> Mechanism in other crops is irrelevant.
-
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
-> Other than bollworms is irrelevant.

E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton
-> Irrelevant. The argument is talking about the present incident not what to do in the future.

Hi AndrewN,

The questions clearly states that Bio-engineered cotton which usually sustain little damage, suffered more than little damage this year. And it is not the case that worms are developing any resistance to the insecticide. But still they suffered more than what what they would suffer in previous years.

My question is how is option B of any help in evaluation?

(B)Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.

How does it matter whether they are suffering extensively or not? Bio-engineered cotton should ideally sustain little damage when attacked by bollworms[subject to bollworms not developing the resistance to the insecticide.] But they suffered more than that. How can we pivot over suffering of normal cotton on the more than average damage of Bio-engineered cotton? We know from the stem that more corn was grown in areas where cotton is grown. And I understand that Bollworms breed on them & hence they were more in number, but why is there more dame to engineered cotton.

I am unable to wrap my head around this.

Can you please help?

Best,

Hello, beeblebrox. This is a classic case of using a control group to measure the effects of some agent, which happens to be bollworms here, on a larger population—in this instance, cotton crops. If you wanted to test the effects of pesticides, you could find two plots of land that were sufficiently far apart (to prevent cross-contamination) and were also sufficiently similar (so no desert in one plot, jungle in the other), then plant the same crops, water them the same way, and so on, but spray pesticides on only one of those plots. The difference between plots in the number of pest visitations or infestations, as we might label them, might then reasonably implicate pesticides as the factor that led to any measurable differences.

In this case, the pesticides are engineered into some of the cotton plants (which we can call GMOs), while other cotton plants have been left alone (non-GMOs). Comparing the damage from bollworms between the GMO and non-GMO crops might lend credence to the argument that the bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide, but are thriving because all cotton in the region has been [equally] overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. In other words, the control group matters because without it, the argument presented is purely speculative. Corn simply happens to be an introduced element that takes our eye off the real culprit, the bollworm.

I see many fine responses above from the likes of KarishmaB and GMATNinja, so I feel especially honored that you would think to ask for my view on the answer choice. If you still have doubts, though, feel free to follow up.

- Andrew

GMATNinja hi expert, I cannot understand the logic of this question. What we only nee to care is whether bollworms develop resistance to bioengineered cotton, why do we need to care where bollworms come from?(from corn or elsewhere)
Also I cannot understand why B is the answer. B says whether ordinary cotton(not bioengineered) suffer damage, but we don’t care this cuz it has nothing to do with whether bollworms develop resistance.
Besides, I think C is better cuz it says whether other bioengineered crops can resist bollworms. If all other bioengineered crops cannot resist, that means bollworms successfully developed resistance to bioengineered crops including the bioengineered cotton. Could you kindly address my issue? Much thanks.

The author concludes "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." In other words, this year's cotton plantings were not "seriously damaged" because bollworms developed resistance to the cotton's bioengineered insecticide. Instead, lots of bollworms bred on corn, and then "overwhelmed" the cotton.

In other words, the author believes the cotton was damaged this year because it was overwhelmed by bollworms that bred on corn. However, an alternative explanation could be that the bollworms developed resistance to the insecticide. To strengthen the conclusion, the author rejects this alternative explanation.

Let's consider (C):


Notice that this answer choice does not address the issue of insecticides against bollworms in particular. It only talks about "pests" in general. Additionally, it doesn't talk about cotton, but about "other crops." To draw a conclusion about cotton or bollworms from this information would require a big leap.

So, since (C) wouldn't give us any relevant information to evaluate the argument, it's incorrect.

Here's (B) again:

What if cotton that doesn't produce insecticide suffered "unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year?" How would that affect the conclusion?

Well, it would indicate that cotton without insecticide suffered more damage than cotton with insecticide. This would suggest that the insecticide was in fact protecting cotton from bollworms. In other words, it would show that the bollworms had not developed resistance to the insecticide. How would this affect the argument?

Keep in mind that the author's argument is supported by the idea that "bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide." The idea that bollworms might have developed resistance to the insecticide is an alternative explanation which the author rejects. Since (B) could help reject this alternative explanation, it would help us evaluate the argument. So (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!

Dear GMATNinja

For this question, the key is to prove that "the cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." right?
Don't need to prove or be concerned to find that other factors may cause the damage because there may be many many factors that why the bio-cotton receives serious damage. But the question just asks whether the corn-bred bollworms overwhelm or not"

the total amount of bio cotton may (or may not) receive damage less than that of non-bio cotton but as long as both are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, it does answer the questionv (either the same rate or not is fine).

But if the non-bio cotton is not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, it may be because of other factors. Thus, the author cannot conclude that "the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms".

Am I correct?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.