V37-18

Question

Agricultural Expert: A report claims that the widespread use of chemical fertilizers in Grainland has led to a decrease in soil quality, citing a study that found lower levels of essential nutrients in the soil. However, this claim overlooks key factors. First, Grainland has seen a significant increase in organic farming, which does not use chemical fertilizers. Second, recent advancements in farming techniques have led to more efficient nutrient usage by crops. Furthermore, the same period saw an increase in crop yield per hectare, suggesting an improvement in overall soil fertility.
 
Which of the following best describes how the expert counters the report’s argument?

A. proposing alternative factors that might have led to the observed decrease in soil nutrients.
B. suggesting that the soil study used in assessing soil quality is flawed.
C. arguing that the increase in crop yield is a more reliable indicator of soil quality than nutrient levels.
D. highlighting advancements in farming techniques that contradict the report's claim about soil quality.
E. asserting that the rise in crop yields proves that the report’s conclusion about the impact of chemical fertilizers on soil quality is false.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Report:  
Premise: a study has found lower levels of essential nutrients in the soil.
Conclusion: the widespread use of chemical fertilizers in Grainland has led to a decrease in soil quality.

Expert:  
Premises:
Grainland has seen a significant increase in organic farming, which does not use chemical fertilizers.
Recent advancements in farming techniques have led to more efficient nutrient usage by crops. 
The same period saw an increase in crop yield per hectare, suggesting an improvement in overall soil fertility.

Conclusion: Report's conclusion (about fertilizers being responsible for decrease in soil quality) overlooks key factors.

The expert attempts to counter the report's argument by .... 
The expert says that the conclusion has overlooked some key factors i.e. it has not evaluated all the factors that could play a role in the situation as it is. What are those factors?
- Organic farming (with no use of chemical fertilizers) has increased hence crops are using the nutrients of the soil. 
- New farming tech allows crops to use soil's nutrient's more efficiently i.e. perhaps the crops are able to better absorb soil's nutrients.
- Productivity has increased in this period so that suggests that soil fertility has actually improved.

Look at the options now:

A. proposing alternative factors that might have led to the observed decrease in soil nutrients.

Correct. He does propose two alternative factors that might have led to the observed decrease in soil nutrients.

B. suggesting that the report's methodology in assessing soil quality is flawed.

The author does not suggest that the study (which found lower level of nutrients) is flawed. That was the report's method of assessing soil quality.

C. arguing that the increase in crop yield is a more reliable indicator of soil quality than nutrient levels.

He does not make a comparison - that this is more reliable than that. He says that this point has been overlooked (key factors overlooked)

D. highlighting advancements in farming techniques that contradict the report's claim about soil quality.

He is not contradicting the claims of the report. He says that some more factors need to be evaluated.

E. presenting a trend that directly opposes the report's conclusion about the impact of chemical fertilizers on soil quality.

He does not present any trend that opposes the report's conclusion about the impact of chemical fertilizer on soil quality. He does not say that chemical fertilizers actually improve soil quality etc. He does present a point that could make us question whether soil quality has degraded or not but he does not present any point (and certainly no trend which lasts much longer) about the impact of chemical fertilizer on soil quality.
Hence this is not correct.

Answer (A)

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Agricultural Expert: A report claims that the widespread use of chemical fertilizers in Grainland has led to a decrease in soil quality, citing a study that found lower levels of essential nutrients in the soil. However, this claim overlooks key factors. First, Grainland has seen a significant increase in organic farming, which does not use chemical fertilizers. Second, recent advancements in farming techniques have led to more efficient nutrient usage by crops. Furthermore, the same period saw an increase in crop yield per hectare, suggesting an improvement in overall soil fertility.
 
Which of the following best describes how the expert counters the report’s argument?

A. proposing alternative factors that might have led to the observed decrease in soil nutrients.
B. suggesting that the soil study used in assessing soil quality is flawed.
C. arguing that the increase in crop yield is a more reliable indicator of soil quality than nutrient levels.
D. highlighting advancements in farming techniques that contradict the report's claim about soil quality.
E. asserting that the rise in crop yields proves that the report’s conclusion about the impact of chemical fertilizers on soil quality is false.

In the passage, the agricultural expert challenges the claim that the widespread use of chemical fertilizers in Grainland has led to a decrease in soil quality. The expert does this by introducing alternative explanations for the observed decrease in soil nutrients:
 
1. The increase in organic farming in Grainland, which does not use chemical fertilizers, could contribute to changes in soil nutrient levels. 
 
2. Recent advancements in farming techniques leading to more efficient nutrient usage by crops, which could affect the levels of nutrients found in the soil. 
 
These points offer alternative reasons for the decrease in soil nutrients, other than the use of chemical fertilizers. This approach is characteristic of (A), which involves proposing other factors that might have led to the observed phenomenon, in this case, the decrease in soil nutrients.
 
The other options are not supported by the passage:
 
• (B) is incorrect because the expert does not critique the methodology of the report's study.
 
• (C) is incorrect as the expert does not argue that crop yield is a more reliable indicator of soil quality than nutrient levels, but merely mentions the increase in crop yield as part of their argument.
 
• (D) is incorrect because, although the expert mentions advancements in farming techniques, they do not use this to directly contradict the report’s claim about soil quality.
 
• (E) is incorrect because it overclaims proof from yield trends and misstates the method. The expert offers alternative explanations rather than conclusively disproving the report.
 
 Given these analyses, (A) is the most accurate representation of how the agricultural expert counters the report's argument. The expert introduces alternative explanations for the observed decrease in soil nutrients, challenging the direct link made by the report between chemical fertilizer use and decreased soil quality.

Answer: A

Equanimity · Answer

Bunuel , author trying to refute the reasoning of the expert(Chemical fertilizers -> Reduced soil quality) can be interpreted in 2 ways:
1. Chemical fertilizers are reducing due to organic farming(explicitly mentioned) and increased efficiencies(Implicit). Hence author is pointing out reducing trend of use of chemical fertilizers. In this interpretation, option E seems to fit better.
2. Soil quality is impacted by organic farming and efficient cropping. Here there is no link to chemicals and these are independent factors. In this interpretation, option A seem to fit.

I went with 1 because, passage explicitly mentioned no chemicals in organic farming. How should one approach this??

bb · Answer

Thank you for the question!
I have provided a better and more refined explanation for the Answer choice (E) and added a semi-useful last line that addresses a different side of things.

(E) is incorrect because the expert does not present a trend that directly opposes the report's conclusion about the impact of chemical fertilizers on soil quality, but rather suggests alternative explanations for the observed data. For something to be a trend, it has to have multiple data points.

P.S. I do not think there is a connection between fertilizers and efficiencies. I don't think you can assume/make connectiont that the fertilizers were NOT used due to increased efficiencies. Rather the nutriend content has changed due to efficiency.

Hope this helps - let me know if any further questions

Fectauz98 · Answer

While the report on declining soil quality is concerning, it's good to see an agricultural expert weigh in with additional factors. Especially the rise of organic farming and improved nutrient use by crops. I hadn't considered those aspects. Maybe focusing on overall crop yield is a better way to gauge soil health than just looking at nutrient levels. Thanks for sharing this!

sayan640 · Answer

KarishmaB  , Can you please explain why option E is wrong here ? Multiple datapoints/ factors have been presented , indeed.

james3000 · Answer

I didn't understand why B is incorrect.
The report claims that widespread use of chemical fertilizers has led to decrease in soil quality. But author mentions in First point that chemical fertilizers are not used. So doesn't it points out flaw in report's methodology?

bb    Bunuel     KarishmaB   - can you please hlep?

bb · Answer

Hi James3000,

I think you are spot on pointing out a flaw in the passage as it seems to contradict itself. I have gone back and fourth 2 times, first agreeing with you, then contradicting you and then not loving the answer choice, so I have modified the choice B to more incorrect. Thank you for your help. I am giving you 2 weeks which will extend your GMAT Club test access as a thank you for helping improve this question.

bb · Answer

FYI - I have further revised answer choice E.

deepkay · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. In the last line the author mentions that the soil fertility has improved as the output per hectare has increased, so it means that soil quality is not reduced thus option A should be wrong which suggests that author has presented different ways in which soil quality has increased

FrozenDragon · Answer

I think you might have misread Option A. Option A talks about different reasons that led to a decrease in nutrients, not soil quality. The author agrees that nutrients have decreased overall. however, he is just skeptical about the cause of this decrease.

prragya · Answer

Hi  Bunuel ,  bb , The option A suggests that author agrees with observed decrease in soil nutrients. But the passage never really suggests this. In fact, author towards end of his argument concludes with the idea that because if higher yield soil fertility has increased. How does this derive an inference that author believed soil nutrition has reduced. Therefore, either Option D or E appear to be better contenders here.

Baoooo · Answer

Hi,

I chose A bc it looks more accurate than the other choices but I'm not sure if I followed - two reasons of disputing why the claim was wrong was listed instead of alternative factors - I meant the argument proves that the claim overlooks key factors but never suggest alternative factors explicitly?

Answer B - isnt saying the overlooked meaning the claim is not accurate? Why you stated that the expert does not critique the methodology of the report's study - isnt the expert pointed out the overlooking already?

Can you advise please? Thanks

V37-18

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