Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with natural meth

Hello, everyone. I see a lot of questions above about the question stem itself, so, as I often like to do, I will start there and then approach the passage and answer choices to see what I can dig up.


This is an evaluate question, which is clear enough from evaluation, but we are not exactly evaluating an argument. Rather, we are being tasked with assessing the logical force or logical impact of the response by the critics. In other words, we need to weigh in on what kind of effect the critics' response may have within the given context. What does the passage hold in store for us?


The Science Academy study paints the picture that some well-managed farms that employ natural methods, a term that is then defined, are able to produce crop yields that are similar to or even better than those produced through less natural means. The critics hit back, though, claiming that the Academy hand-picked (pardon the pun) the farms in the study so that, presumably, the eventual findings would fall in line with the result the Academy wanted. As evidence, the critics pose a question about some unspecified number of farmers who have attempted to use natural methods and failed to achieve similar results.

That is about as far as I go in my assessment of the passage. I am not a big pre-thinker. The reason is that I have practiced enough questions to know that sometimes my pre-thinking leads to a correct answer, sometimes it misleads me (and makes me blind to alternative options), and sometimes it leads to nothing at all, failing to align with any of the answer choices. I prefer to jump right in and get my hands dirty examining the actual answers, taking on the role of the lawyer and attempting to disprove anything in a given option. Keep in mind, we are looking to evaluate what impact this rebuttal by the critics may have within the context of the passage.


Luck and chance have nothing to do with the critics' response. They make a statement about the Academy study and ask a question that is supposed to serve as evidence against the findings of the study. This is an off-topic answer, easy to see off.


In the words of the critics, not so. They do not show anything. Rather, they assert one thing, that the study was biased by design, and then pose a question about other farmers. Be careful, too, about stretching to qualify something like twice as many farms when there is no such quantifying language in the critics' response. Besides, the Academy, if the allegations of the critics were true, could just as easily have selected twice as many farms of the type that it wanted to reinforce its eventual findings. This is an altogether wayward answer.


Who are we to judge whether the critics are able to make an assumption here on crop failures? Their rebuttal is in response to the successful crop yields of some farms in the study that employed natural methods. If we are to take this response at face value and assume ourselves that the failures refers to those failed crop yields in the final question, then on what grounds are we basing our assessment? Actual, real-life farming knowledge? Where does the passage refer to soil quality? Remember, we have to evaluate the force of the critics' response, and this answer misses the mark not once, not twice, but thrice (and you may even find further foibles). Keep moving.


At last, we land on a first-rate answer, only this one happens to be a well-designed trap. Like show in choice (B), demonstrate here is too strong. The critics do not demonstrate anything. Again, they state that the result of the study is dubious, and they ask a question about other farmers who have been unsuccessful using natural methods. If that constitutes proof, then we are really taking a step backwards in logic, basing our argumentation on the tried-and-true logic of, say, a five-year-old. But I will let that one slide, since it is a nuanced issue and is thus easy to miss. What you should not miss, however, is the qualified majority of farmers—I am assuming that framers is a typo—when the critics simply mention farmers. That could mean two farmers, for all we know. We have no way of knowing how many farmers the critics may be referring to. For these reasons, this choice fails.


This one is the hardest to argue against. Ask yourself, do the study findings indicate that farming with natural methods can produce yields that are at least on par with those in which less natural methods are used? Yes, they do. Now, the critics take issue with these study results, claiming a selection bias, but this answer choice addresses the critics' concern: the study is not meant to show that the farms studied were representative of farms in general that employ natural methods. All the study shows is that some well-managed farms are able to use natural methods without necessarily decreasing yields. The force of the critics' response is diminished, to say the least, if the basis for their argument is not relevant. Case closed.

I enjoyed this question, and I hope it makes more sense to everyone now. If there are lingering doubts, I would be happy to discuss them further. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew