Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide again

Found a good explanation from gmat expert:
First, identify the conclusion: it is likely that the genetically-engineered cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms instead of being attacked by bollworms that are developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide.

Evidence: More corn than usual was planted, and bollworms breed on corn.

The argument is not very convincing, as the reader is not given enough evidence to decide which of the two possible reasons for the damage (resistance or abundance of corn) is the actual reason. It may well be that both are contributing factors, nor can we be sure that there is no other factors.

Look for evidence that favors one reason over the other.

A is irrelevant
B is very helpful, for if the answer is 'yes', the corn explanation seems more plausible. If the answer is 'no', the corn explanation loses all credibility: if other cotton is not damaged to an unusual extent, then it seems unlikely that they are more worms.
C is irrelevant
D is irrelevant
E is irrelevant

What is the conclusion here?

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

Lets take B. It says "Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year". Lets say the damage is high for cotton plants that do not produce insecticide. What can we conclude out of that? The damage could be because of high infestation of bollworms in that particular region, or because of natural occurence, or the artificial insecticide used was not good enough. Based on this information, how can we evaluate the conclusion reached in the argument?

What if the damage is low. Does that mean cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms? It could also mean bioengineered cotton is not producing isecticide and also there are corn-bred bollworms.

I think B is not a perfect option. Seems to be the best among worst.

I)The argument talks about "this year".
II)We know what is causing all the damage.
This year (I) the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms (II).

D. Whether plantings of bio engineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than boll worms.

D has two problems:
I)Does not have a time frame. Are "frequently damaged"... we cannot infere that this is happening this year as well nor that the damage of the past years has some reflection on this year's cotton.
II)Since we already know what is causing the damage, the info abut other pests is not relevant.

Hope it helps

IMPORTANT ANALYSIS POINT :
If we read closely, in the beginning of the argument they are talking about the plantings of bioengineered cotton, but notice that later they are talking about the PLANTING as a whole is being damaged. So, from here itself we get a hint that,

Plantings of cotton = Plantings of bioengineered cotton + Plantings of non-bioengineered cotton

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSAL ARGUMENT,
First note the CORRELATION, More Corn planted throughout cotton-growing regions, More bollworms, thus more damage to the plantings of cotton
Conclusion -- So 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?

APPLYING VARIANCE TEST TO EACH AND EVERY OPTION.

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
Yes, corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide. How does that affect the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms?? Its totally Irrelevant with respect to the current perspective. Lets see how,
The argument says, bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So, the corn was planted last year itself and knowing that corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide is of no use now/currently, as the corn is already planted last year. If this fact was known before hand then it could have helped to control the population of bollworms in corns and thereby, in cotton and thus, could have affected the conclusion in hand. But knowing this fact now is totally irrelevant as the corn is already planted and BOLLWORMs have already bred. INCORRECT.

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
Yes, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year. This supports the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. Its not the bioengineered one but the non-bioengineered which is causing the trouble. The bioengineered one is producing its insecticides and the bollworms are not resistant to it, means bollworms are causing damage to non-bioengineered but the bioengineered ones.
No, will weaken the conclusion. Its just the opposite. CORRECT.

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
Yes, other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them. This does not affect the conclusion at all. It even does not matter whether other bioengineered crops were able to resist pests or not. We are exclusively concerned with the plantings of cotton. It does not affect the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. INCORRECT.

D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
Yes, plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms. it is again irrelevant to the conclusion in hand -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. As we are specifically concerned with corn-bred bollworms not any other insect pests. INCORRECT.

E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton
Its clearly given in the argument that Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. So this option statement is totally irrelevant. INCORRECT.

If we see clearly options C, D, and E are totally irrelevant. Option A might cause a doubt, but if we read the argument closely, option A can be quickly eliminated.

Is there any expert's analysis for this question?

e-GMAT- can you please help?

Much thanks.

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.

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

Type - Evaluate
Boil it down -it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide - This statement fails to address the issue
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year - Correct
Applying variance test - If the answer to this statement is Yes , then bollworms have affected all types of cotton . Then conclusion is valid
On the other hand , if the answer to this statement is No , then bollworms have inflicted extensive damage only on cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms.

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 - Out of scope
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms - Out of scope
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton - Irrelevant

Answer B

The basic argument:

Some cotton should kill any bollworms that eat it

For years that was true, but this year the bollworms are eating all of that cotton

We conclude that this isn't happening because the cotton isn't killing the bollworms any more, but because there are just too many bollworms around

That conclusion is dubious, because we have no evidence that there are more bollworms this year

So to evaluate the argument, we would want that evidence.

How do we know that there are so many MORE bollworms this year?

If we look at other cotton, or even other crops, and see more bollworm damage than usual, that would help.

We'd have more evidence that bollworms are overrunning crops.

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

Some info from powerscore on evaluate the argument type questions:
- EA questions require you to select a question, statistic, or additional info. that would either strengthen or weaken the argument
- EA questions are solved via the Variance Test: pose polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and evaluate the impact on the conclusion; a correct response will both strengthen and weaken the argument

Argument: it is likely that the bioengineered cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms
P1 : Bollworms typically breed on corn and last year there was more corn planted throughout cotton-growing regions
P2: This year the plantings have taken damage from bollworms despite the fact the Bioengineered plantings generally sustain little damage from bollworms
CP: This does not mean that Bollworms are necessarily resistant to the natural insecticide occuring in the bioengineered plantings

What should we evaluate to determine the
(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
Indirectly I had thought that this answer choice would pass the variance test because if corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide then perhaps it would have meant that bollworm populations are kept at bay, but this doesn't prevent the likelihood that bollworms could have developed a resistance to the natural insecticides of either cotton/ corn and thus it may not negate the fact that damage done by BWorms was greater this year.

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
Variance test:
Yes- all cotton in general is suffering from more bollworm damage this year than usual --> Conclusion is supported
No - plantings of cotton that do not produce insecticide naturally are not suffering from unusual damage this year, so it's just the bioengineered cotton. Bollworm population may be the same across non-bio engineered and bioengineered, but the bollworms may just be more attracted to the bioengineered cotton, thus the conclusion that the cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms may not necessarily be true.

(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
This answer choice attempts to parallel logic between another crop and cotton, but what might be true of other bioengineered crops may not be true for cotton.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
Whether other insects damage the cotton in question is irrelevant to the argument that this year bioengineered cotton has been overrun by corn-bred bollworms.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

Whether there are insecticides that can be used to contain the damage neither negates or reinforces the argument that this year bioengineered cotton has been overrun by corn-bred bollworms.

I will go with B. B clearly establishes that it is not just the resistant cotton that are getting affected and that bio engineering had nothing to do with how much they were affected by the bollworms.

First of all, I have some good news... we are currently working on a QOTD post for this very question! Stay tuned for a detailed explanation.

For now, let me try to help with your questions:


If something is not necessarily true, it might be true and it might not be true. Consider the following example:

Our company's revenues will increase next year. That does not necessarily mean that our profits will increase.

Does that mean that profits will NOT increase? We don't know. Profits might increase and they might not. The point is that we cannot determine whether the profits will increase just because revenues will increase. Profits might increase if revenues increase. But profits will not necessarily increase just because revenue increases.

In this passage, we are told that bollworms are seriously damaging cotton plantings this year. That might be evidence that bollworms are developing a resistance to the insecticide. But just because bollworms are damaging the plantings does not necessarily mean that bollworms are developing a resistance to the insecticide. In other words, based on the evidence (damage to plantings), we cannot determine whether bollworms have developed a resistance.

THEN the author presents further evidence: " Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions." According to the author, this additional evidence suggests that bollworms have NOT developed a resistance.

Based on the initial evidence (damage to cotton plantings), we can't tell whether bollworms have developed a resistance. The additional evidence (more corn than usual) provides an alternative explanation for the initial evidence. Thus, in light of the additional evidence, the author believes that the bollworms have NOT developed a resistance. Instead, "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."

Hopefully that helps!

Responding to a pm:

This is what the argument says:

Bioengineered cotton produces its own insecticide against bollworm. It was effective till last year.
This year, bollworm is hurting cotton crop.
But this does not mean that bollworm has developed resistance to the insecticide. A lot of corn was produced last year which bred too many bollworms so that may be the reason of too many boll worms destroying the cotton crop this year. The insecticide is perhaps being ineffective because of too many bollworms.

All in all, the argument says this: it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms

What will help in evaluating this? What will help in establishing whether the damage is because of too many corn-bred bollworms - whether cotton insecticide is still effective

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide

This is irrelevant. What we could do in the future doesn't matter. Our question right now is - why is cotton getting destroyed by bollworm this year?

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

Correct. We have bioengineered cotton that produces insecticide so it doesn't get damaged by bollworm. The non-bioengineered cotton gets damaged by bollworm. This year, we see that bio cotton is also getting destroyed. We are proposing that this is because of too many bollworm. So we should try to find out whether non-bio cotton is also suffering unusual damage. If there are too many bollworm, both types of cotton will suffer UNUSUAL damage - more than ordinary damage. If non bio cotton used to lose 10% of the crop, it should also lose 15% this year due to excessive population of bollworm. If non-bio cotton is suffering the same damage as every year, that means that bio cotton has lost its resistance and that is why it is suffering more this year.
Hence, knowing this will help in evaluating the reason for damage of bio-cotton this year.

(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

Irrelevant. What goes on with other bio crops doesn't matter.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms

Irrelevant. Pests other than bollworms are irrelevant.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

Whether there is another way to handle the bollworms is irrelevant. Our question is why bollworms are damaging the cotton crop this year.

Answer (B)

Why is D wrong??

We need to evaluate the argument..
We can either strengthen or weaken the argument. D states that something else could have caused to for the effect.

Need experts opinion...

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.

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

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
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
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton[/quote]


Dear mikemcgarry, GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k,

I am not sure whether I complete understand the prompt, please help to clarify.
Especially when I read “Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide”, Does it mean developing resistance is not the cause?
likewise, "it is not necessarily true" means it is not true,
so I can neglect this cause -- developing resistance, right?

Then I need find an answer choice to evaluate whether the planting of bioengineered cotton suffered seriously damaged because of corn-bred bollworms, right?
Per choice B, Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

#1 )If non bioengineered cotton does suffered the damage, then corn-bred bollworms did cause the damage, -- strenghten
#2) If non bioengineered cotton does not suffered the damage, then other factor caused the damage, -- yes, weaken
but I wonder the cause should be developing resistance, or other factor except neither con-bored bollworms nor developing resistance?
I am not sure whether should I consider developing resistance a cause, because it confuses me a lot that “Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide”.

genuinely need your help.

Thanks in advance

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi everyone! There seems to have been a lot of great responses on this question already but I thought I would also share my perspective here in case a few of the more recent commenters are still looking for their 'ah hah' moment. Again, as with all of my posts, I am NotAnExpert, simply a current GMAT student that is using the forum as a place to learn and share my learnings.


1. Read and compartmentalize - Right off the bat, this passage uses a word I have never heard of, bollworms, a lot - 6 times! Also, the word corn and insecticide appear a lot, and the repetition of words often just makes reading a passage very annoying. For some reason, I find it similar to swatting away flies. I end up just shortening the word Bollworm to B in my had and it just makes my reading so much smoother without compromising any understanding.

Now on to the meat part - I've categorized each sentence in my mind, and the conclusion is just the final sentence. As I read, I paraphrased the question somewhere along the lines of - Bioengineered cotton has internal insecticide, not impacted by Bollworm until this year. Bollworms not necessarily building resistance to cotton. Bollworms breed on corn, this year more corn than usual, therefore corn-bred bollworms fault.

2. Pre-think when possible - always! - Curious and cruiouser...I actually started thinking 'what if there is non-bioengineered cotton? is that okay?' I think this was a rare thought for me, usually I'm not the best at pre-thinking for evaluate the argument. If you're in the same boat as me, I wouldn't fret. Move to the choices and think about what question you would want answered.

3. Find 4 wrong answers - Now this might sounds plain obvious, but...focus on the conclusion and what would help you evaluate its merits!

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide - The conclusion was that cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. Does the information in this answer choice lead you to any more confidence in judging the argument? Even if corn could produce insecticide, they presumably bred bollworms, and hence I'm getting nowhere on evaluating the conclusion made.

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that do not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year - Bingo! Yup, if there are non-bioengineered cotton plants out there and they're suffering form lots of damage from bollworms - alongside their insceticide producing cotton plant peers - then I can make a more informed decision on the merits of the conclusion.

(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 - Questioning the validity of insecticide resistance will not help us. Regardless of whether the cotton plants are sort-of resistant, or totally-resistant, they would be this way every year. As a result, knowing this information would not help us get a better grasp of if this year, the high volume of corn-bred bollworms is the reason for an abnormally high crop damage.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms - Eh, even if they were frequently damaged by other insects, I still can't get a better handle on if the reason why they damaged so much this year was because of corn-bred bollworms.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton - Even if there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms resistant to insecticide, the problem is that the damage has already been done and we am trying to figure out if the corn-bred bollworms were the culprit.

Hopefully this helps some folks out! As always, feedback and comments are always welcome.

This is quite confusing can anyone explain

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.

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!