The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all. If

Question

The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all. If these had been effective, our farms would have produced more sugarcane this year than they did last year.

The argument in the passage would be most seriously weakened if it were true that

A) fewer farmers worked on sugarcane farms this year than did last year
B) the weather this year was very conducive to sugarcane crop
C) the author is a proponent of natural fertilizers
D) the overall sugarcane production in the country in this year was more than that of last year
E) the floods at start of this year washed and damaged the sugarcane fields

Aviral1995 · Answer

I eliminated D because it might be possible that synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all and the overall sugarcane production in the country in this year was more than that of last year as in other parts of the country people might not be using might synthetic fertilizers
 jennpt   VeritasKarishma   AjiteshArun  please let me know if this reasoning is correct to eliminate D

SB0895 · Answer

Shouldn't there be a comparison factor? Between the two years

Option E does not say if a flood took place or not, last year

WarriorWithin · Answer

Option D is all messed up.

As per the information in the 
argument, the sugar cane production is equal or less than the last year.
Option D says it was more than the last year. ( Contradictory info - never seen this before in option choices for any of the practice questions)

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB · Answer

This year farms produced same amount of sugarcane or less compared with last year.

Conclusion: The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all.

The argument is saying that the cause of no increase in production is that the synthetic fertiliser used was not effective. 
Option (E) gives an alternate cause - floods caused damage so production reduced. 
Hence, overall no increase.

This weakens our conclusion that ineffective fertilisers were the problem.

Option (D) is incorrect. A correct option does not conflict with a given premise because we take given premises to be true. An incorrect option could be anything though the test makers aim to give something you can likely fall for. Hence, official questions would rarely have so irrelevant an option.

amarghosh · Answer

VeritasKarishma -- Can you pl explain why option A & B is incorrect ?

KarishmaB · Answer

This year farms produced same amount of sugarcane or less compared with last year.

Conclusion: The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all.

A) fewer farmers worked on sugarcane farms this year than did last year

How many "farmers" worked on fields is irrelevant. Perhaps more machines were used. Number of farmers has nothing to do with productivity so no need to delve deeper in it.

B) the weather this year was very conducive to sugarcane crop

We don't know anything about last year's weather. The argument is a comparison of this year's production with last year's production. To evaluate the effect of weather this year, we need to compare it with the effect of weather last year.

Gemmie · Answer

A) Fewer farmers worked on sugarcane farms this year than did last year: 
Fewer farmers may or may not lead to lower yield because while fewer workers can impact production (since the impact of this on yield is not mentioned), it’s not a direct and certain cause. There are other factors that could influence yield, so it doesn't definitively address whether the fertilizers were effective..

B) The weather this year was very conducive to sugarcane crop: 
If the weather was conducive, it would suggest that conditions were favorable for a good harvest. If production was still lower, it could further support the argument that fertilizers were ineffective.

C) The author is a proponent of natural fertilizers: 
This indicates bias but doesn't directly address the effectiveness of the synthetic fertilizers.

D) The overall sugarcane production in the country this year was more than that of last year: 
If the overall production increased, this suggests that factors other than fertilizer could have led to a lower yield on these specific farms, weakening the argument that synthetic fertilizers were ineffective.

E) The floods at the start of this year washed and damaged the sugarcane fields:  
This provides an alternative explanation for the lower production that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the fertilizers. If the fields were damaged by floods, this could be the reason for reduced yields, thereby weakening the argument.
Compared to Choice A, Floods washing and damaging the fields clearly lead to lower yield. This provides a strong, direct cause for the lower production that has nothing to do with the fertilizers. It makes the argument that the fertilizers were ineffective much weaker and less convincing.

The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all. If

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

The synthetic fertilizers used this year were not effective at all. If

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