ykaiim wrote:
Scientists have modified feed corn genetically, increasing its resistance to insect pests. Farmers who tried out the genetically modified corn last season applied less insecticide to their corn fields and still got yields comparable to those they would have gotten with ordinary corn. Ordinary corn seed, however, costs less, and what these farmers saved on insecticide rarely exceeded their extra costs for seed. Therefore, for most feed-corn farmers, switching to genetically modified seed would be unlikely to increase profits.
Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
(A) Whether there are insect pests that sometimes reduce feed-corn yields, but against which commonly used insecticides and the genetic modification are equally ineffective
(B) Whether the price that farmers receive for feed corn has remained steady over the past few years
(C) Whether the insecticides typically used on feed corn tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops
(D) Whether most of the farmers who tried the genetically modified corn last season applied more insecticide than was actually necessary
(E) Whether, for most farmers who plant feed corn, it is their most profitable crop
Solutionpassage analysis Scientists have modified feed corn genetically, increasing its resistance to insect pests.Genetically modified (GM) feed corn has higher resistance to insect pests.
Farmers who tried out the genetically modified corn last season applied less insecticide to their corn fieldsFarmers who sowed these GM corn last season, used less insecticide on the corn fields
and still got yields comparable to those they would have gotten with ordinary corn.And even with less insecticides, they were able to get similar yields that they would have gotten even if they had used ordinary corn. (what we can infer here is that the yield that these farmers got with GM corn + less insecticide = ordinary corn + more insecticide)
Ordinary corn seed, however, costs less, and what these farmers saved on insecticide rarely exceeded their extra costs for seed.But ordinary corn seed is cheaper than GM corn seeds. Whatever the GM corn using farmers save on the insecticide costs is seldom more than what they spend extra on the GM corn seeds.
Therefore, for most feed-corn farmers, switching to genetically modified seed would be unlikely to increase profits.Hence, for most of the feed-corn farmers, changing to using GM corn seeds would be unlikely to lead to higher profits.
Conclusion: For most feed-corn farmers, switching to genetically modified seeds would be unlikely to increase profits since
The GM corn seeds are costlier than the ordinary corn seed
The saving on pesticides is seldom more than the extra cost of the GM seeds
pre-thinking Falsification questionIn what scenario will switching to genetically modified seed be likely to increase profits for most feed-corn farmers?
Given that →Genetically modified (GM) feed corn has higher resistance to insect pests.
→the yield that these farmers got with GM corn + less insecticide = ordinary corn + more insecticide
→The GM corn seeds are costlier than the ordinary corn seed
→Saving on pesticides is seldom more than the extra cost of the GM seeds
Thought ProcessHere the debate is about GM seeds of corn and whether their usage is likely to be profitable or not. Agreed that these seeds cost more than the ordinary seeds but because the GM seeds need less fertilizers, these farmers would save money on the fertilizers. Yet this saving is not really useful because what they save here is almost always the extra that they spend on the GM seeds. So the author believes profits are unlikely to increase for most farmers who want to start using GM seeds.
Falsification condition#1What if the farmers who used GM corn seed last season did not correctly estimate the quantity of pesticide that should be used?
Let us say, the quantity of pesticide they used last year could have been reduced further to save on pesticide costs. Then there would have been a good chance of earning profits even with comparable yields.
Assumption#1The quantity of pesticide used by the farmers using GM seeds could not have been further reduced or was the optimal.
Falsification condition#2What if the use of GM seeds significantly reduces other agricultural costs like irrigation, etc?
Say the GM seeds can do with very little water or they can do with less supervision, thus cutting down considerably on labour, etc. In that case, even with higher GM seed costs and comparable yields, switching to GM seeds would increase profits.
Assumption#2Overall, all other costs of production remain comparable for both GM seed users and ordinary corn seed users.
Answer Choice AnalysisAThis option seeks to know whether there are insect pests that reduce feed-corn yield, but against which common insecticides and GM are useless.
Why is the existence of these pests important here? We know that certain kinds of pests exist and we are given the results for two kinds of seeds for these pests. Our goal is to evaluate whether planting one kind is more profitable. The existence of a special variety of seeds is irrelevant in that context
Hence, this is not the correct choice.
BOnce again, if the yield after using the GM corn seeds does not exceed that after using ordinary corn seeds, then whatever be the price, the earnings from the sale would remain comparable. It is not that GM corn is fetching a higher price.
Hence, this option is not the correct choice.
CComparison with the cost of pesticides used on other crops will not serve my argument any which way. It is irrelevant because that impacts the cost of growing for other crops.
Hence, it is not the correct choice.
DAlthough, as per the passage the GM seed users used less pesticides last season, we would like to know if it was the optimal amount that was used or more than the necessary amount needed that was used.
It is along the lines of our pre-thinking assumption#1.
Let us put it to the variance test
Yes- Most of the farmers who tried the genetically modified corn last season DID apply more insecticide than was actually necessary.
If they did then our assumption would be falsified, and our conclusion weakened.
No - Most of the farmers who tried the genetically modified corn last season DID NOT apply more insecticide than was actually necessary
In this case, the pesticide costs could not have been reduced further. Our belief in the conclusion is further strengthened, though.
Hence, this is the correct choice.
EThe point under discussion is the profitability of GM corn over the profitability of ordinary corn. So, whether feed corn is their most profitable crop does not reflect on whether the change to GM corn will be profitable or not.
Hence, not the correct answer.
Do you guys realize that we don't have so much time during the exam to follow Falsification and all this jazz?
Would request all fellow readers to get the basics right and to follow proper logic like
close
15 Mar 2018, 23:07
. But I am not able to establish linkages between premises to come up with an assumption to arrive at (D) in e-gmat way. Because the premise clearly says that savings in using less insecticide cannnot offset the cost of seed. So even if we use even less insecticide its not going to make too much difference. Plus how can we challenge/change premise. 
