Scientists have modified feed corn genetically, increasing its resista

Solution
passage 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 fields

Farmers 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 question

In 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 Process

Here 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#1

What 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#1

The quantity of pesticide used by the farmers using GM seeds could not have been further reduced or was the optimal.

Falsification condition#2

What 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#2

Overall, all other costs of production remain comparable for both GM seed users and ordinary corn seed users.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This 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.

B
Once 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.

C
Comparison 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.

D
Although, 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.

E
The 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.

Solution
passage 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 fields
Farmers 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 seeds 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 question

In 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 Process

Here 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#1

What 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#1

The quantity of pesticide used by the farmers using GM seeds could not have been further reduced or was the optimal.

Falsification condition#2

What 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#2

Overall, all other costs of production remain comparable for both GM seed users and ordinary corn seed users.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This 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 existence of these pests important here? We know that certain kind 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.

B
Once 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 the GM corn is fetching a higher price.

Hence, this option is not the correct choice.
C
Comparison 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.
D
Although, 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.
E

The point under discussion is the profitability of GM corn over 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.

IMHO D.

D stands out. But even D seems to have a few flaws.

The cost of the genetically modified seeds is high so if they use insecticides there will be a loss. - strengthens the arg
If they do not use insecticides how can it be deemed a profit ? (the cost of the seeds is HIGH ) - how does this weaken the arg to effectively be the right answer?

Can someone plz help ?

In the question.it says "Farmers who tried out the genetically modified corn last season applied less insecticide to their ..."
Here it clearly says the farmers used less insecticide...
Why option D is right ?

Posted from my mobile device

You have to read the question very carefully:

"Farmers who tried out the genetically modified corn last season applied less insecticide to their corn fi elds and still got yields comparable to those they would have gotten with ordinary corn."
The argument says that farmers using modified corn applied less insecticide than the farmers using ordinary corn.

(D) Whether most of the farmers who tried the genetically modified corn last season applied more insecticide than was actually necessary
On the other hand, option (D) says that we need to evaluate whether the farmers who used modified corn applied more insecticide than was necessary i.e. whether even less insecticide was needed.

The comparison is with different things. Does it make sense now?

Hi Meghna,


Please help me by resolving the conflict in my assumption in this question-

Profit depends on cost and selling price. Here the author is saying that the switching would unlikely increase profit. Hence the assumption could be that the selling price of both genetically modified feed corn and ordinary corn is same. Hence the answer can be (B).

However, I don't challenge GMAT . 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.

Can you please guide.

Thanks,
Pritisha

For (B) vs (D), check this link: scientists-have-modified-feed-corn-genetically-increasing-94161-20.html#p1382766

Ask if anything remains unclear.

Hi Karishma,
If option B was something like:
Whether the price that farmers receive for feed corn would fluctuate in future.

Will it be a contender then?

Regards,
SR

No, it wouldn't be. The price farmers receive for feed corn is the same - whether they use genetically modified seeds or ordinary seeds. What we need to figure out is whether the profits will increase if they switched to genetically modified seeds i.e. if one farmer uses ordinary seeds this year and another uses genetically modified seeds this year, whose profit will be higher? Since revenue earned by both will the same, the question is which farmer's cost will be lower?

Where does it imply that selling price is the same? The first sentence says "modified feed corn" but B says "feed corn". How would I know that feed corn means modified and original

Note that option (B) says:
"Whether the price that farmers receive for feed corn has remained steady over the past few years"

The question is not trying to probe the difference in the selling price of original corn and modified corn. A steady or non-steady selling price in previous years will not help us decide whether original will give more profit or modified.

Had the question been: "Whether the farmers can receive a higher selling price for corn which uses less insecticide" or something similar, then it would have been relevant too our discussion of which corn will give more profit.

Situation-
The yields from the insect resistant feed corn are same as the ones from the ordinary cotton.
GM Feed corn is expensive.
Cost of GM feed corn + Less insecticide cost > Cost of ordinary feed corn + More cost of Insecticide

Conclusion-
For most feed-corn farmers, switching to genetically modified seed would be unlikely to increase profits.


Evaluation-

In order to conclude about the profit= SP-CP, we need information about SP but there is not any.We have no information about the selling price of the GM Feed corn vs ordinary feed corn. The argument must assume or forces us to assume that the SP for GM feed corn is equal to ordinary feed corn.

How do we increase profits ?(Note the yields are same from both types of corn feed)
1. Decrease cost of production.
2. Increase selling price

POE-

(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

This information is of no help. If there are such insects then they will affect both the crops equally.But this information does not help us to increase profits.

(B) Whether the price that farmers receive for feed corn has remained steady over the past few years

Past is dead and does not gurantee future. Even if the price were steady, that does not ensure that price will be steady now or in the future.We do not have any information about the price differentiation, if any, between the two types of the corn feed.

(C) Whether the insecticides typically used on feed corn tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops

This affects the comparison equally.Same as option A does.So what if the insecticides are expensive, we are just instersted in profit comparison between the two types of corn feed and not between corn feed and other crops.


(D) Whether most of the farmers who tried the genetically modifi ed corn last season applied more insecticide than was actually necessary

If the farmers appplied more insecticide on the GM feed corn then there might be a way to reduce the cost of production and hence INCREASE profits.

Cost of GM feed corn + Less insecticide cost > Cost of ordinary feed corn + More cost of Insecticide

The option gives us a reason to suspect that there might be a way to increase profits.

A yes answer to option D will give us a reason that profits might be increase and may be the conclusion is wrong.
A no answer to option D will give us a reason that the situation is unlikely to change and the conclusion stands correct.

It is good to remind ourselves that all we need to do is to check-
1.The conclusion may be not true or is doubtful.A yes answer to option D would do exactly this.
2. The conclusion is true without doubt.

(E) Whether, for most farmers who plant feed corn, it is their most profi table crop

This information is immaterial as it directs the comparison towards other crops and not between the two types of feed corn.


Hope the above is helpful!

[b]Kudos if you like the post.[/b]

Dear experts,

Based on my analysis, choice C is quite compelling.

Our conclusion first of all as always: Therefore, for most feed-corn farmers, switching to genetically modified seed would be unlikely to increase profits.

CASE 1: Where the price of insecticides is higher among 'feed corn' than among 'ordinary corn'. In such a case the overall costs (i.e Quantity of insecticide x cost ) would be significantly higher for feed corn than for ordinary corn resulting in a loss of savings. Now this loss would not exceed the extra costs of switching feed corn. So our conclusion is strengthened.
CASE 2: Where the price of insecticides is higher among 'ordinary' corn than among 'feed corn'. Now in this case the overall costs would significantly lower for 'feed corn' than for 'ordinary corn' resulting in significant savings. Now the savings could be significant enough to exceed the extra costs of switching to feed corn. So it is possible that the conclusion may be weakened.

We could use a variety of numbers to test this. I used some numbers of my scratch paper to test it out and it worked as per the analysis above.

My point is that I'm uncertain as to why choice C does not qualify as a valid point for evaluating the argument. Is it because the choice compares feed corn with other types of crops( instead of ordinary corn) or is there something wrong with my analysis ?

(C) Whether the insecticides typically used on feed corn tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops

Please do guide me with analysis for choices C and D

RanjanSury, I think you've correctly identified the problem with (C):

If choice (C) were, "Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary feed corn tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on genetically modified feed corn," then it might have some bearing on the argument.

Regardless, we are already told that "what these farmers saved on insecticide rarely exceeded their extra costs for seed". If the farmers applied the correct amount of insecticide, then who cares how much the insecticide actually cost? Even if the insecticide for genetically modified corn is cheaper, the savings in insecticide costs do not make up for the additional costs of the genetically modified seed.

However, we would absolutely want to know whether the farmers were applying more insecticide than was actually necessary. If so, they might be able to further reduce their insecticide costs. That would directly affect the evidence cited in the passage, so (D) is the best answer.

I still don't understand why D is correct? The passage says they have already used less insecticide on the GMO corn

Let's say that most farmers who tried the GM corn applied more insecticide than was actually necessary. In that case, they could theoretically save even MORE money on insecticide by using less of it next time. In other words, they spent more money than was needed on insecticide.

The author says, "The farmers saved X dollars on insecticide, but they had to spend an extra X dollars (approximately) for the GM seed. So overall they did not save any money." But maybe farmers used, for example, twice as much insecticide as was actually necessary. In that case, using the GM seeds with the CORRECT amount of insecticide would actually save the farmers money.

So we would absolutely want to answer the question in option (D) in order to evaluate the author's argument. I hope that helps!