Two experimental fields were each planted with wheat. Potash

Question

Two experimental fields were each planted with wheat. Potash was added to the first field but not to the second. The first field produced 151 bushels of wheat per acre and the second field produced 110 bushels of wheat per acre. Since nothing else but water was added to either field, the higher yields in the first field must been due to the potash.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

(A) A small amount of the potash leached into the second field.

(B) Wheat in a third experimental field, to which a high-nitrogen fertilizer was added, but no potash, produced 130 bushels of wheat per acre.

(C) Four different types of wheat were grown in equal proportions in each of the fields.

(D) Some weeds that compete with wheat cannot tolerate high amounts of potash in the soil.

(E) The two experimental fields were located in different states.


Please explain the reason.

OA  ' E'

vineetgupta · Answer

A simple way to answer such questions is to find some weakness in the analogy.
Only E does that.

Now,any choice that says that the experimental conditions were same or were not different in any other way strengthens the argument as it eliminates a difference.

zakk · Answer

D

We are trying to weaken the arguement for potash. D says it was better becasue of the lack of weeds. 

E is a tempting solution as well, but not as weakening as D

dahcrap · Answer

I feel C weakens more than E

briks123 · Answer

E. 

The argument suggests that since nothing else besides water was added, that potash must be the source of the difference. But what if something else was the source? Clearly if the two were located in different states, this could be a factor contributing to the differences.

vay · Answer

E is the answer.


I don't agree with D. If some weeds cannot tolerate high amounts of potash then it means that because of potash there is more growth..in a way this strengthens then argument.

kalpvriksha14 · Answer

it should be E as it most seems to weaken the argument..it cant be D,because the lack of weeds itself is a result of potash..

asaf · Answer

Only E has the potential of underminning the argument as it finds ANOTHER difference (other than water).

dahcrap · Answer

Sorry got it

zakk · Answer

good point. Re-reading this, I think I was going after the lack of weeds.

g_kansal · Answer

D. In second field, weeds caused yield to drop which were wiped out by potash in first field.

whats the OA

ColumbiaDream · Answer

Going with E. OA Please?

Two experimental fields were each planted with wheat. Potash

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