Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
03 Jun 2026, 11:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (02:12) correct
46%
(02:30)
wrong
based on 365
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Some farmers have recently begun planting cotton grown from genetically modified seed designed to increase resistance to insect pests. Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests. The modified seed, however, costs more per acre than ordinary seed. On the basis of these facts, some analysts conclude that switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
03 Jun 2026, 16:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Some farmers have recently begun planting cotton grown from genetically modified seed designed to increase resistance to insect pests. Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests. The modified seed, however, costs more per acre than ordinary seed. On the basis of these facts, some analysts conclude that switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Conclusion of the analysts:
switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically
Support for the conclusion:
Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests.
and
The modified seed, however, costs more per acre than ordinary seed.
We see that the analysts have done a cost-benefit analysis by considering the cost of the seed and the slight difference in the pesticide use of those who used the seed and that of those who didn't and decided that switching to the modified seed isn't economically beneficial.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
The correct answer to this Weaken question will show that, even though the premises are true, the analyst's conclusion may not be valid.
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
The fact that farmers who used the modified cotton seed had previously used modified seed to grow other crops means nothing about the costs and benefits of using the modified cotton seed.
Eliminate.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
This is an irrelevant comparison.
After all, regardless of how the cost of insecticides used on cotton compares with the cost of insecticides used on other crops, those who used the modified cotton seed used only slightly less insecticide than those who used ordinary cotton seed. So, it could still be true that using the modified seed doesn't result in saving much on insecticide.
Eliminate.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
This information has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of how great a share of revenue cotton accounts for, if modified seed costs more without enabling much of a reduction in insecticide use, switching to the modified seed won't benefit farmers economically.
Eliminate.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
This choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, the passage says the following:
those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre
and
The modified seed ... costs more per acre
So, the premises already account for the number of acres planted by different farmers by comparing on a per-acre basis.
Eliminate.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the premise that supports the analysts' conclusion is the following:
Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests.
So, this choice, in combination with that premise, indicates that the farmers who used the modified seed went from previously spending "significantly more per acre on insecticides" than farmers using ordinary seed to using "slightly less."
In other words, by switching to the modified seed, farmers achieved significant reductions in spending on pesticides. So, it appears that switching did benefit them economically.
Thus, this choice indicates that switching to the modified seed could benefit farmers economically and thus weakens the case for the analysts' conclusion,
Keep.
Correct answer: E
Conclusion of the analysts:
switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically
Support for the conclusion:
Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests.
and
The modified seed, however, costs more per acre than ordinary seed.
We see that the analysts have done a cost-benefit analysis by considering the cost of the seed and the slight difference in the pesticide use of those who used the seed and that of those who didn't and decided that switching to the modified seed isn't economically beneficial.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
The correct answer to this Weaken question will show that, even though the premises are true, the analyst's conclusion may not be valid.
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
The fact that farmers who used the modified cotton seed had previously used modified seed to grow other crops means nothing about the costs and benefits of using the modified cotton seed.
Eliminate.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
This is an irrelevant comparison.
After all, regardless of how the cost of insecticides used on cotton compares with the cost of insecticides used on other crops, those who used the modified cotton seed used only slightly less insecticide than those who used ordinary cotton seed. So, it could still be true that using the modified seed doesn't result in saving much on insecticide.
Eliminate.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
This information has no effect on the strength of the argument.
After all, regardless of how great a share of revenue cotton accounts for, if modified seed costs more without enabling much of a reduction in insecticide use, switching to the modified seed won't benefit farmers economically.
Eliminate.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
This choice has no effect on the argument.
After all, the passage says the following:
those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre
and
The modified seed ... costs more per acre
So, the premises already account for the number of acres planted by different farmers by comparing on a per-acre basis.
Eliminate.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
This choice is interesting.
After all, the premise that supports the analysts' conclusion is the following:
Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests.
So, this choice, in combination with that premise, indicates that the farmers who used the modified seed went from previously spending "significantly more per acre on insecticides" than farmers using ordinary seed to using "slightly less."
In other words, by switching to the modified seed, farmers achieved significant reductions in spending on pesticides. So, it appears that switching did benefit them economically.
Thus, this choice indicates that switching to the modified seed could benefit farmers economically and thus weakens the case for the analysts' conclusion,
Keep.
Correct answer: E
04 Jun 2026, 09:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Some farmers have recently begun planting cotton grown from genetically modified seed designed to increase resistance to insect pests. Compared with farmers using ordinary seed, those using the modified seed required only slightly less insecticide per acre to control pests. The modified seed, however, costs more per acre than ordinary seed. On the basis of these facts, some analysts conclude that switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
The analysts compare farmers who used modified seed with farmers who used ordinary seed and conclude that the modified seed is probably not economically worthwhile. The weakness is that the two groups may not have been comparable before the switch. If the modified-seed farmers previously had much worse insect problems, then using only slightly less insecticide than ordinary-seed farmers could still represent a large improvement for them.
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
This is irrelevant. Experience with other genetically modified crops does not show whether the modified cotton seed saves enough money.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
This does not help. The comparison is between modified cotton and ordinary cotton, not between cotton and other crops.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
This does not weaken the conclusion. It shows cotton is important, but not that the modified seed is economically beneficial.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
This does not weaken the conclusion. Since the comparison is already per acre, similar acreage does not change the basic economic comparison.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
This is correct. If the farmers who tried the modified seed were those with unusually high insecticide costs, then the modified seed may have greatly reduced their costs relative to their own previous situation. That weakens the conclusion that switching would be unlikely to provide an economic benefit.
Answer: (E)
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the analysts’ conclusion?
The analysts compare farmers who used modified seed with farmers who used ordinary seed and conclude that the modified seed is probably not economically worthwhile. The weakness is that the two groups may not have been comparable before the switch. If the modified-seed farmers previously had much worse insect problems, then using only slightly less insecticide than ordinary-seed farmers could still represent a large improvement for them.
A. Many of the farmers who tried the modified seed had previously grown other crops using genetically modified seed.
This is irrelevant. Experience with other genetically modified crops does not show whether the modified cotton seed saves enough money.
B. The insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton are substantially more expensive per unit than those typically used on other crops.
This does not help. The comparison is between modified cotton and ordinary cotton, not between cotton and other crops.
C. For most cotton farmers, cotton accounts for the largest share of their total farm revenue.
This does not weaken the conclusion. It shows cotton is important, but not that the modified seed is economically beneficial.
D. Farmers who tried the modified seed planted approximately the same average acreage of cotton as farmers who used ordinary seed.
This does not weaken the conclusion. Since the comparison is already per acre, similar acreage does not change the basic economic comparison.
E. Farmers who tried the modified seed had previously spent significantly more per acre on insecticides than most farmers using ordinary seed.
This is correct. If the farmers who tried the modified seed were those with unusually high insecticide costs, then the modified seed may have greatly reduced their costs relative to their own previous situation. That weakens the conclusion that switching would be unlikely to provide an economic benefit.
Answer: (E)
