Farmer: Though illnesses caused by commercial produce

Question

Farmer: Though illnesses caused by commercial produce consumption are usually attributed to the use of pesticides on the affected plants, the reality is that pesticides are not usually to blame. Since pesticides are only dangerous when consumed in large quantities, most people who experience stomach pains as a result of eating some sort of fruit or vegetable are actually suffering as a result of their food allergies and would have become just as ill from pesticide-free produce.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the farmer's argument?
(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.
(B) Numerous tests have shown that beef derived from livestock raised on pesticide-exposed feed is safe for human consumption.
(C) Pesticide allergies have been known to cause symptoms similar to those arising from food allergies.
(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.
(E) Many fruits and vegetables trap pesticide residue in the porous cell membranes just under the skin.

Hi guys,

I am struggling to fully understand the following question. I don't have an official answer but I am leaning towards answer D.
Please help to fully understand the argument and the correct answer.

KyleWiddison · Accepted Answer

Yes - the answer to this one is D. It's a nice little strengthening the conclusion question.

Counterpoint: People think pesticides make you sick
Conclusion: Pesticides are NOT to blame
Premise: You would have to ingest a lot of pesticides to get sick
Premise: People getting stomach pains from food are really experiencing food allergies

To find the answer you need to find a way to strengthen the conclusion that pesticides are not to blame. Think about what additional premise could you add to the string of logic to make the conclusion more believable/reasonable.

A/B/E are all out of scope - they don't help us see why pesticides are not causing stomach pains.
C is highly relevant but it weakens the conclusion instead of strengthening.
D is the correct answer - it gives more evidence to support the claim that pesticides are not causing the stomach pains.

KW

crick20002002 · Answer

I would also vote for D.

The Conclusion is pesticides do not cause illness and the stomach pain is actually caused by food allergy. D counters it by saying stomach pain is not a symptom of illness from pesticides.

Crick

eladshus · Answer

hi crick20002002 - thanks for your reply.

I do think that D is the correct answer, but isn't it because it eliminates an alternative cause for the stomach pain and food allergies? Maybe the farmer didn't know that the small quantities of pesticides do cause illness that has similar symptoms like food allergies such as: stomach pain and food allergies symptoms. This statement eliminate that option and say: it cannot be true that stomach pain and other food allergies symptoms are associated with illness that is caused by pesticides, and even if they are, these cases are rare and take longer to manifest.

Hope to get your opinion on that,
Elad

geevikram · Answer

C is 180 degree switch. Cause -- > Effect, does not mean Effect -- > Cause.

holidevil · Answer

I agree to the answer choice D as well. I am unable to understand the meaning of the answer choice A. My understanding of it is as follows:
I People who eat pesticide infected food and who have no food allergies suffer from pain
II People who have food allergies and who do not eat pesticide infected food do not suffer from pain. 
It would be too exaggerated to say the people of group II do not suffer from any pain. The author means that people of group I suffer more pain than people of group I.

Choice A, in light of the above understanding, weakens the argument.

Request the mods and other fellow users to throw light on it.

metallicafan · Answer

+1 D

The symptons of illness caused by pesticides are different. Therefore, they are not the cause of the stomach pains experienced by the consumers.

jlgdr · Answer

Between D and A, I personally like D better because it shows that those symptons are not from pesticides hence strengthening the conclusion that they must be cause by something else. Cheers J

sammervash · Answer

Question asks, "Which best supports the farmer's argument: 'When people experience stomach pains from fruit/vegetables, it is not from pesticides (which are harmful only in large quantities), but from food allergies.'".

Type: cause & effect
A: pesticides
B: stomach pains
C: food allergies
Claim: A -/-> B; rather, C -> B.

(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.
- I am a bit unclear as to whether this is saying that people with stomach pain are experiencing no food allergies, like those who do not have symptoms, OR that those with stomach pains experience just as much (or less) food allergies than those without symptoms (so you could have a) people with stomach pains from pesticides with food allergies, b) people with stomach pains from pesticides without food allergies, c) both people have food allergies, but one suffers from stomach pains, while the other does not). Regardless, this argument does not make it any clearer that food allergies (not pesticides) cause stomach pains, which is what the farmer wants to prove. Thus, Answer A is incorrect.

You are correct that Answer A weakens the argument, but the statement does not mention if people who have food allergies suffer from pain or not. The statement implies that A (pesticides) -> B (stomach pain); we cannot conclude that "Those with food allergies don't eat pesticides, so NO A (pesticides) -> NO B (pain), therefore food allergies -> no pain". It's only saying that people who have pain from pesticides may have just as much (or less) food allergies than symptom-free people. This would weaken the argument in the sense that this statement admits that pesticides can indeed cause stomach pains, regardless of food allergies.

(B) Numerous tests have shown that beef derived from livestock raised on pesticide-exposed feed is safe for human consumption.
- Incorrect: the farmer is talking about pesticide-related stomach pains from fruits/vegetables, not meat.

(C) Pesticide allergies have been known to cause symptoms similar to those arising from food allergies.
- Incorrect: it's already been established that pesticide and food allergy symptoms may be similar (stomach ache) -- we're trying to determine the actual cause.

(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.
- Correct: This makes a strict distinction between food allergy symptoms and pesticide-related illnesses; in other words, stomach aches are symptomatic of food allergies, not pesticide-related illnesses. So, if someone gets a stomach ache, it can't be because of pesticides.

If you don't mind me commenting: I think that's what Crick is saying, if I understand you correctly, eladshus. Crick is saying that the two causes of stomach pains are either a) food allergies or b) pesticides. D eliminates b) as the cause by stating that stomach pain isn't a symptom of pesticide-related illnesses; so the alternative cause is a) food allergies, which has stomach pain as one of the symptoms. So, your reasoning is correct!

(E) Many fruits and vegetables trap pesticide residue in the porous cell membranes just under the skin.
- Incorrect: this does not prove that stomach aches come from food allergies rather than pesticides.

jlgdr · Answer

So all, what's the final word for this one? Is it D? Too many questions without OA's nowadays....not nice. Cheers J

nechets · Answer

In my opinion, answer is D. The argument is trying to break the relationship between pesticides and stomach pain, while linking stomach pain with food allergies. Any answer that helps to establish this linkage will be the right one.

(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.  Wrong. Be careful with this answer, as this is a word-shell. It tries to trick you in a very confusing wording, but it is basically saying that pesticides is not related to more or fewer cases of food allergies. This is irrelevant. What is necessary to know is whether pesticides are causing more illnesses.

(B) Numerous tests have shown that beef derived from livestock raised on pesticide-exposed feed is safe for human consumption.  Wrong. This answer is pointing to only one single case, and it makes difficult to generalize to other forms of pesticide ingestion. In other words, it is too specific to one single case.

(C) Pesticide allergies have been known to cause symptoms similar to those arising from food allergies.  Wrong. This is reverse logic answer. If more cases of pesticide ingestion and allergies were confound the less probable someone would be able to know which one is causing the disease.

(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.  Correct. This answer breaks the link! And leaves no further room to refute the fact that food allergy is a stronger case causing the food illness, as opposed to pesticides.

(E) Many fruits and vegetables trap pesticide residue in the porous cell membranes just under the skin.  Wrong. This is out of scope.

semwal · Answer

IMO - A & D are contenders..... because others are out rightly rejected.....

Lets see them.....

(A) People who experience stomach pains from ingesting pesticides generally suffer from no more food allergies than do people who do not experience such symptoms.

Means that the pain experienced by those ingesting pesticides is due to Pesticide only not food allergy........because balance do not experience such symptoms when food devoid of pesticides is consumed by them....Hence this is a weakener... .

(D) Stomach pain and other food allergy symptoms are not associated with illnesses caused by pesticides, which are statistically rare and take longer to manifest.   Rules out an alternative... hence food allergy only would have caused stomach pain... hence CORRECT ANSWER... .

AnmolKukreja · Answer

Sir

I have a question here....The conclusion says that Pesticides are not to be blamed for causing illness......and option D says that Stomach aches are not caused by pesticides but pesticides in that case may cause any other illness....Please correct me sir

plumber250 · Answer

Hi - I can help here.

I agree - there is a little bit of tricky wording in here, but that is just what makes the GMAT a challenge...

You are correct that the farmer mentions 'illness' in the first sentence. HOWEVER Look at the second sentence (the one the conclusion actually focuses on) "Since pesticides are only dangerous when consumed in large quantities, most people who experience  stomach  pains as a result....."

So D talking about stomach pains is OK!

Hope that helps

James

AnmolKukreja · Answer

Sir so you mean to say that the conclusion is not "Pesticides are not to be blamed" but "￼￼Since pesticides are only dangerous when consumed in large quantities, most people who experience  stomach  pains as a result....". I thought the latter was a premise and not a conclusion.....Please correct me if i am wrong

AKG1593 · Answer

Choosing D.
Farmer says food allergies,not pesticides,cause stomach pain(or such symptoms).D supports this by saying that pesticides are not associated with such symptoms as stomach pain.

Posted from my mobile device

jiveshjuneja · Answer

Although i marked D, I am not sure that the language in the option D is correct. What does which in option D refer to. It should refer to the illnesses but it seems to refer to the pesticides. Could someone clear that part for me.

KyleWiddison · Answer

This is a case where what we used to refer to as the "touch" rule of noun modifiers has an exception. "Which" will refer to the closest noun except when there is another modifier that has to sit in between. For example: "The carton of ice cream, which is still unopened, was purchased last week." In this sentence the "which" modifier is referring to the carton, not the ice cream. We can't put "which" any closer than it is right now.

In option D, the "which" modifier refers to illnesses (caused by pesticides). We have to stick "caused by pesticides" right next to illnesses because it is an essential descriptive element of the illnesses. The "which" clause sits as close as it possibly can to the word it modifies - "illnesses".

KW

sairam595 · Answer

Hi  chetan2u ,

Can you please explain what option A says here

megha_2709 · Answer

Hi Kyle, Thank you for posting such a good explanation however I still cant refute C

. Can you please elaborate more why C is incorrect.

. Would really really appreciate your help. Thanks in advance for your kind response. Regards Megha

Farmer: Though illnesses caused by commercial produce

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Farmer: Though illnesses caused by commercial produce

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