Hey all,
Thanks for the comments here, they're really helpful.
It would be amazing if someone could walk me through where my logic is wrong.
I saw both C and D as attractive answers, and chose C. I'll explain my rationale for all answer choices. Does my logic stink anywhere? More importantly, can someone explain why D works isntead of C, and where my logic is wrong?
(A) -- a notice won't reassure gardeners since they are still just as likely to buy fungal-ridden tulus
(B) -- labeling a tulu that is less than 30 weeks old will similarly not help gardeners avoid buying fungal-ridden tulus
(C) To me, C works assuming you can find another way to test plants less than 24 weeks old. Clearly current methods of testing this plant are not good enough. I liked this answer because, assuming the research pays off, the government can still meet their original goal (to reassure gardeners that the plants have been tested). Plus, as an added bonus, this answer choice won't force customers into changing their buying habits -- after all, the fact that customers buy tulus <24 weeks old indicate that they prefer these types of tulus.
The only assumption here is that the research pays off...(D) To me, D works so long as people buy tulus >30 weeks old even though they don't currently do so. As long as the assumption that people will simply buy older tulus (i.e. that there is no preference for young tulus over old tulus), this answer choicew works.
(E) Sounded kind of extreme when I first read it, and C + D looked attractive so I didn't give this one much thought. It seems like it won't necessarily stop people from buying fungal-ridden tulus as the quarentine occurs after the fact. Seems like a weak choice to me.
If someone could explain where my logic sucks on C vs. D, that'd be great
In C, research MIGHT result in a solution which would let us test 24 weeks or prior but we are looking for answer which is a sure shot/definite solution