Scientist: Many consumers think that by consuming organic produce, the

Question

Scientist: Many consumers think that by consuming organic produce, they are saving resources, because it takes lower amounts of pesticides and fertilizers to grow organic produce than it takes to grow an equivalent amount of non-organic produce. However, the consumers are incorrect, since the amount of resources required for the general upkeep of organic farms is far greater than the difference in the resource consumption of the two types of produce.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the greatest additional support for the scientist’s conclusion?

A. A serving of organic produce costs up to five times as much as a serving of non-organic produce does.
B. Non-organic produce can be stored for several weeks, while organic produce lasts a much shorter time.
C. Organic produce grown in Mexico makes up an increasing percentage of the total organic produce sold worldwide.
D. Organic produce retailers consume more resources in keeping their products fresh than do any other type of food retailers.
E. Though non-organic produce must be kept in a cleaner environment, organic produce is far more sensitive to the presence of pests and fungi.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler

agrasan · Answer

Scientist: Many consumers think that by consuming organic produce, they are saving resources, because it takes lower amounts of pesticides and fertilizers to grow organic produce than it takes to grow an equivalent amount of non-organic produce. However, the consumers are incorrect, since the amount of resources required for the general upkeep of organic farms is far greater than the difference in the resource consumption of the two types of produce.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the greatest additional support for the scientist’s conclusion?

A. A serving of organic produce costs up to five times as much as a serving of non-organic produce does.
 Incorrect , the argument in not about the costs of organic and non-organic products to consumers.

B. Non-organic produce can be stored for several weeks, while organic produce lasts a much shorter time.
 Correct , this provides an evidence that additional resources are needed for organic products due to their much shorter shelf life.

C. Organic produce grown in Mexico makes up an increasing percentage of the total organic produce sold worldwide.
 Incorrect , the argument is not about market share of organic products.

D. Organic produce retailers consume more resources in keeping their products fresh than do any other type of food retailers.
 Incorrect , just a repetition of the conclusion given in the argument.

E. Though non-organic produce must be kept in a cleaner environment, organic produce is far more sensitive to the presence of pests and fungi.
 Incorrect , we already know from the fact that an organic product takes lower amounts of pesticides and fertilisers to grow organic produce than it takes to grow an equivalent amount of non-organic produce.

egmat · Answer

Consumer belief:  Organic produce saves resources → because it needs fewer pesticides and fertilizers.
 Scientist's counter:  The general upkeep of organic farms requires  far more  resources than the difference saved on pesticides/fertilizers.
 Conclusion:  Consumers are  incorrect  - organic produce does  not  save resources.

Key Observation:  The scientist's argument only covers the  farming stage . But the full resource lifecycle of produce doesn't end at the farm — there's also storage, transport, and  retail . To strengthen the conclusion, we need evidence that organic produce doesn't make up for its farming costs downstream either.

Why (D) is correct:

(D) says organic produce retailers consume  more resources  keeping their products fresh than  any other type of food retailers .

This means organic produce loses on TWO fronts: 
 1.  At the farm → upkeep costs exceed the pesticide/fertilizer savings (scientist's point)
 2.  At the retail stage → keeping organic produce fresh costs more resources than any other food retail

This shuts down the only escape route: "Maybe organic saves resources after the farm." It doesn't. That  strengthens  the scientist's conclusion.

Why the other choices fail:

(A) Cost ≠ Resources. Price is driven by demand, branding, margins -  not a direct measure of resource consumption . This is a classic trap of conflating money with resources.

(B) Shorter shelf life  could  imply waste, but the link to resource consumption is  indirect and speculative . We'd need to assume wasted produce = wasted resources, which is an extra logical step the argument doesn't support.

(C) Where organic produce is grown (Mexico) tells us  nothing  about whether it saves or wastes resources compared to non-organic. Irrelevant.

(E) Being sensitive to pests and fungi describes a  vulnerability , not a resource cost. Sensitivity ≠ more resources used.  Don't assume what isn't stated.

Answer: D

Dereno · Answer

Scientist says , many consumers usually think that by consuming organic food, they are actually saving resources. The argument behind this claim is to produce x kgs, organic farms require lesser quantities of fertilisers and pesticides, than the quantities which are used in inorganic farming.

So, pesticide and fertiliser ( Organic Farming) < pesticide and fertiliser ( Inorganic farming).

The scientists say the resource consumption for ORGANIC farm > resource consumption for INORGANIC farm.

Note : resource consumption doesn’t necessarily mean fertiliser and pesticides alone.

Why has the relationship changed ? Because, the UPKEEP COST ( Maintenance cost) for organic farm is high.

Which of the following, if true, would provide the greatest additional support for the scientist’s conclusion?

A. A serving of organic produce costs up to five times as much as a serving of non-organic produce does.

This option speaks about a serving of food, which is not relevant to the context. Serving cost can be impacted by numerous factors like transportation cost, fuel increase, tariff etc. Hence, Wrong.

B. Non-organic produce can be stored for several weeks, while organic produce lasts a much shorter time.

This option speaks about shelf life, while both are decaying products. The rate of decay is faster for organic compared to non organic. Resource utilisation can increase, does this mean farm upkeep increased. I am not convinced fully. As general upkeep of farm means making the farm fit for next season, free from pests, fungi , weeds etc.

C. Organic produce grown in Mexico makes up an increasing percentage of the total organic produce sold worldwide.

This option speaks about a comparison between Mexico and worldwide, while the actual context is more generalised and not localised to a particular region. Hence, Wrong.

D. Organic produce retailers consume more resources in keeping their products fresh than do any other type of food retailers.

This option moves the food chain, from produce site to selling region. The retailers striving to keep the product fresh is not related to the resource consumption occurring st farm side. Hence, wrong.

E. Though non-organic produce must be kept in a cleaner environment, organic produce is far more sensitive to the presence of pests and fungi.

The organic produce is more sensitive to pests and fungal infestation compared to non organic produce. If that’s the case, the frequency and amount utilised for expelling pests and fungi can be greater than actual. So, does this push the limit upward for the usage of resources like pesticides and fertiliser? Obviously Yes. Sensitive plants needed extra care compared to non organic plants. So, the upkeep of farms has increased.

Option E.

aditya1818 · Answer

I still think option (D) is the winner here.

It clearly adds support to the conclusion that "resources" are more consumed in order to keep the organic produce fresh.

I rejected (B) :  Non-organic produce can be stored for several weeks, while organic produce lasts a much shorter time.

Because organic produce lasts a much shorter time does not necessarily require more resources explicitly.

What if the factory produces some breads that can last 1 day. Therefore, they will not transport much farther, so less transportation cost. No refrigeration is required as they may be consumed the same day and so no spoilage. Altogether, how in the world will it imply any commodity lasting for a shorter time automatically consumes more resources. An extra assumption needs to be made in order to satisfy the requirement for them to consume more resources.

This is my take.

I will go with option (D)

temporeincidunt · Answer

Is it B or D ? Even though everyone says B i dont see a reason to cut out D

Adit_ · Answer

It is indeed D, the point is that consumer believes persticides and fungi are one of the ONLY reasons for resources involved

Basically 
For consumers: Resources --> Persticides
This is denied by countering the fact that general upkeep is far more
We need to find a statement that bridges this general upkeep that counters the consumers and proving scientist's point that there is more more to "resources" than just pesticides.
Others are pretty much irrelevant.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOisEQ6NUQk

SKP220292 · Answer

egmat

I disagree with the reasoning you used where you said that the whole lifecycle of the resource consumption must be relevant in the evaluation.

Let's look at the language - "...consumers think....they are saving resources, because it takes lower amounts of pesticides and fertilizers    to grow    organic produce than it takes    to grow   ..."

The argument states the premise that consumers have for their belief that X saves more resources than Y. Said premise clearly is within the restricted and necessarily restricted scope of "to grow" - i.e. resources needed to grow. That would include direct supplements such as pesticides and fertilisers as well as any other resources necessary to keep the farm operational because without a well maintained farm, the "growing" goes out the window.

What happens after the produce leaves the farm and the lifecycle of the produce and that of the resources once the produce has left the farm is clearly not related to the "grow" stage of the crops - making this stage necessarily out of scope of the consumers' premise and hence simply should not be considered in evaluating which is more resource intensive. Whether organic or inorganic consumes more resources during the growth in farm stage is all that should matter because of aforementioned scope. And let's keep in mind also the fact that GMAC tests understanding of scope and application of it in CR as a rather key tool. So, I disagree with your reasoning here because I think it totally blurs and overextends the scope that is established in the consumers' premise.

To be frank, none of the options do a good enough job here - if anything, this question only reinforces why non-official sources (for Verbal) can often be hit-or-miss.

Ankanleo · Answer

I don't agree with option D here as what happens after the produce leaves the farm shouldn't be relevant to the argument.

GK6091 · Answer

The Argument Structure
The Consumer View: Organic produce is resource-saving because it uses fewer pesticides and fertilizers.

The Scientist's Conclusion: Consumers are incorrect; organic produce does not save resources overall.

The Scientist's Premise: The resources required for the general upkeep of organic farms are much higher than the resources saved on pesticides and fertilizers.

We need a choice that strengthens the idea that organic farming/production consumes a massive amount of resources, outweighing any savings.

Let's evaluate the options:

A. Cost differences: Price (costing five times as much) is a financial metric, not necessarily a direct measure of physical resource consumption (like water, fuel, land, or energy).

B. Storage time: While it mentions organic produce lasts a shorter time, it doesn't directly link this to higher resource consumption during its production or upkeep.

C. Geographic origin: Where the produce is grown (Mexico) doesn't tell us anything about the global resource math between organic and non-organic.

D. Retailer resource consumption: This talks about retailers (stores), whereas the scientist’s argument specifically focuses on the upkeep of the farms and the growing process.

E. Sensitivity to pests and fungi: If organic produce is far more sensitive to pests and fungi, farmers must invest massive amounts of resources (like manual weeding, physical barriers, crop rotation management, or extra water/labor) into the general upkeep of the farm to protect the crops. This directly supports the premise that farm upkeep is incredibly resource-intensive.

The correct answer is E.

Scientist: Many consumers think that by consuming organic produce, the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Scientist: Many consumers think that by consuming organic produce, the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards