In an effort to combat three consecutive years of boll weevil infestat

Question

In an effort to combat three consecutive years of boll weevil infestations, cotton farmers have started using Eradicon, a chemical just released to market, capable of emitting an odor that effectively repels the boll weevil. The agricultural board expects that cotton production on those farms using Eradicon will return to levels similar to those from three years ago.

Which of the following, if true, does the most to weaken the agricultural board's expectations?

A) Eradicon has been proven to repel boll weevils in a laboratory setting.
B) Those cotton farmers who chose not to use Eradicon tended to witness a greater drop in cotton production during the last three years than those who started to use Eradicon.
C) Most boll weevil infestations happen in the early spring, when cotton plants are highly vulnareble.
D) When used for more than a week, Eradicon begins to rob the ground of nitrates, without which cotton plants cannot adequately grow.
E) Farmers need to spray Eradicon on their fields once every few days for it to be effective.

kntombat · Answer

Which of the following, if true, does the most to weaken the agricultural board's expectations?

A) Eradicon has been proven to repel boll weevils in a laboratory setting.    Not our answer    (  Opposite answer, this strengthens the agricultural board's expectations. )

B) Those cotton farmers who chose not to use Eradicon tended to witness a greater drop in cotton production during the last three years than those who started to use Eradicon.    Not our answer    (  This is irrelevant to the agricultural board's expectations. )

C) Most boll weevil infestations happen in the early spring, when cotton plants are highly vulnerable.    Not our answer    ( This is irrelevant to the agricultural board's expectations. )

D) When used for more than a week, Eradicon begins to rob the ground of nitrates, without which cotton plants cannot adequately grow.    This is our answer    (  This option clearly gives us another reason as to why using Eradicon could in the long term not help the production levels return to what they were 3 years ago. )

E) Farmers need to spray Eradicon on their fields once every few days for it to be effective.    Not our answer    (  Out of scope, how many times Eradicon has to be sprayed does not add or subtract anything from the argument. )

The OA is D.

Aabhash777 · Answer

Option D tells us that as the farmers use Eradicon, the nitrates will deteriorate. This in turn will impact the cotton production in long run. Thus the cotton production of this year might not be greater or equal to than that of three years ago. Thus, Option D is the correct answer.

duasahab · Answer

I am confused between (B) and (D).

My issue with (D) is the question nowhere states they need to use it for more than a week. Maybe they spray it once every harvest?

For (B) - if the farmers who won't use Eradicon face lower levels of production and other farmers who use it return to similar levels or even higher levels from 3 years ago, maybe the total combined production is still lower / not at similar levels than 3 years ago.

With (D) we have to assume 'they have to use it for more than a week'. With (B) we have to assume the combined production will return to similar levels with some farmers producing more and some farmers producing less.

What am I missing here?

XLmafia21 · Answer

In strengthen/weaken questions, the stimulus is under suspicion. You are right, that its nowhere in the stimulus mentioned that they need to use it for more than one week or even once every harvest. But, thats what the option D says and you have to assume that it is true and so does the question stem asks you to do by saying "which of the following, if true...". Which means eradicon after being in use for just over a week starts depleting the soil quality and hence, exposes a flaw in the plan that just by repelling the Boll weevil is not going to bring back the production to previous levels.

Problem with option B is that it is a possible strengthener at best rather than weakener. If non-usage of Eradicon exacerbated the situation, then may be using it could help bring back the production levels. But, we are asked to identify a weakener. Hence, this is wrong. The overall growth or drop in production levels due to both usage and non-usage cannot be clearly determined here. You are assuming that and hence made this mistake.

Hope this helps/

In an effort to combat three consecutive years of boll weevil infestat

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

In an effort to combat three consecutive years of boll weevil infestat

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