Scientist: Genetic modification has been very widely used in

Question

Scientist: Genetic modification has been very widely used in agriculture for a long time now. It's fantastically effective and it will have a big impact on the ability of the world to feed itself, to make bio-fuels, etc.  It has become controversial for many complicated reasons . Some of the most understandable concerns are from a socioeconomic point of view where seed companies that own the ability to produce these high-yielding hybrids obviously impact the market and the price of food in ways that elements of the public would have a problem with.  From a health standpoint, though, there really is not one shred of evidence that genetically modified food has any impact on health other than beneficial.  It seems that a mixture of socioeconomic, environmental and other concerns have congealed into this dislike of genetic modification without a proper understanding of what it means and what it has done for agriculture being in place.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

a. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed by the argument.

b. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second provides evidence that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument.

c. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

d. The first is a judgment that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is evidence that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument.

e. The first is a claim that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

Abhishek009 · Answer

1st introduces a finding/observation. (Reject D & E as it presents facts, not a claim)
2nd Presents a fact as well
The last line, highlighted in the stimulus is the Scientist's claim/conclusion...

So, 2nd statement --leads/help -----> The third statement...

Hence, option (C) is rejected...

Very close between (A) & (B)

For both (A) and (B) first part is the same " The first state a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; " the choice must be after this part...

a.  The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument ;  the second is evidence  that has been used to support the position being opposed by the argument.

b.  The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument ;  the second provides evidence  that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument.

The point of the decision is whether the 2nd bold is evidence or not, read the line again to confirm " From a health standpoint, though, there really is not one shred of evidence that genetically modified food has any impact on health other than beneficial."

This sentence is not evidence, it is a finding/observation, hence correct Answer must be (B), as this sentence, leads/helps in arriving the conclusion.

adroitpensador · Answer

I rejected the correct answer because I wasn't able to decrypt the part -  'that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument'

But here's a little break-down of this part of the answer option. Going piece-wise -

1. Position being opposed by the argument - There are some concerns (held by the public) on application of genetic modification in public. These are incorrectly held, at least from the health perspective. 
2. Support for the position - Public concerns are rooted from whether BIG AGRO firms will aggressively use genetically modified crop in order to boost profits but that could have an impact on nutritional value
3. Undermining the support - Exactly where our Boldfaced statement comes into play stating  'From a health standpoint, though, there really is not one shred of evidence that genetically modified food has any impact on health other than beneficial'

ArvindS37 · Answer

Conclusion: The a mixture of socioeconomic, environmental and other concerns have congealed into this dislike of genetic modification without a proper understanding of what it means and what it has done for agriculture being in place.
Statement 1: Opinion of scientist. Have mixed implication on the conclusion.
Statement 2: Fact. Supports the conclusion.

a. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed by the argument.
The second is evidence that has been used to support the position taken by the argument not being opposed by the argument. 
b. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second provides evidence that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument.
This seems correct. We keep this option for now.
c. The first states a circumstance, the implication of which is at issue in the argument; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
The second is not the main conclusion of the argument.
d. The first is a judgment that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is evidence that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument.
The first judgement is not opposed by the argument. It discuss the issue and provides information in support and against the system.
e. The first is a claim that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.
The second is not the main conclusion of the argument.

Thus, Choice B is the right answer

catcun · Answer

egmat  could you please explain the second half of B?

egmat · Answer

catcun  the second half in the option (B) reads:  "the second provides evidence that has been used to undermine the support for the position being opposed by the argument"

Let's decode this backwards:

"The position being opposed by the argument"  = The anti-GM stance (the view that GM foods are problematic)
 
  "Support for the position"  = The reasons people cite for opposing GM foods (health concerns, environmental concerns, socioeconomic concerns)
 
  "Undermine the support"  = Weaken or remove those reasons
 
  "The second provides evidence that..."  = The second boldface gives evidence that accomplishes this weakening

Putting it together:

The second boldface states there's  "not one shred of evidence that genetically modified food has any impact on health other than beneficial."

This directly addresses and weakens the health-based concerns that some people use to oppose GM foods. By showing there's no negative health evidence, it removes one pillar of support for the anti-GM position.

The phrase "undermine the support for the position being opposed" describes a  two-layer relationship : it's not just opposing a position directly, but specifically weakening the reasons/evidence that support that opposing position. This nuance is what makes option B correct rather than simpler descriptions.

Hope this answers your question!

Scientist: Genetic modification has been very widely used in

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: Genetic modification has been very widely used in

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