Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide again

Question

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

ID: 500239

Situation 
Although plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce an insecticide to combat bollworms were little damaged by the pests in previous years, they are being severely damaged this year. Since the bollworms breed on corn, and there has been more corn planted this year in cotton-growing areas, the cotton is probably being overwhelmed by the corn-bred bollworms.

Reasoning 
 In evaluating the argument, which question would it be most useful to have answered?  The argument states that the bioengineered cotton crop failures this year (1) have likely been due to the increased corn plantings and (2) not due to the pests having developed a resistance to the insecticide. This also implies (3) that the failures are not due to some third factor.

It would be useful to know how the bioengineered cotton is faring in comparison to the rest of this year's cotton crop. If the bioengineered cotton is faring better against the bollworms, that fact would support the argument because it would suggest that the insecticide is still combating bollworms. If, on the other hand, the bioengineered cotton is being more severely ravaged by bollworms than is other cotton, that suggests that there is some third cause that is primarily at fault.

(A) This would probably be useful information to those trying to alleviate the bollworm problem in bioengineered cotton. But whether such corn could be developed has no bearing on what is causing the bioengineered cotton to be damaged by bollworms this year.

(B) Correct . If bollworm damage on non-bioengineered cotton is worse than usual this year, then bollworm infestation in general is simply worse than usual, so pesticide resistance does not need to be invoked to explain the bollworm attacks on the bioengineered cotton.

(C) Even if other crops that have been bioengineered to resist pests have not successfully resisted them, that fact would not mean that the same is true of this cotton. Furthermore, the facts already suggest that the bioengineered cotton has resisted bollworms.

(D) Whether other types of pests often damage bioengineered cotton has no bearing on why bollworms are damaging this type of cotton more this year than in the past.

(E) This, too, might be useful information to those trying to alleviate the bollworm problem in bioengineered cotton, but it is not particularly useful in evaluating the argument. Even if there are pesticides that could be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide of the bioengineered cotton, that does not mean that such pesticides are being used this year.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The passage says that this year's cotton plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. The conclusion of the passage is that "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." Let's review the author's argument:

Bollworms are a major cause of cotton crop failure. 
 To combat this problem, cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms has been used. Until this year, plantings of the bioengineered cotton sustained little bollworm damage. 
 This year, all of the sudden, the bioengineered plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Why is that? What has changed? 
 A possible explanation is that the bollworms have developed a resistance to the cotton's insecticide.

The author believes that there is another possible explanation:

Last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. 
 Bollworms breed on corn. 
 It is possible that the bollworms have NOT developed resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Rather, the bollworms may simply be breeding on the corn and then infesting the nearby cotton plants.

The author thus concludes that "it is  likely  that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." We have two possible explanations... is the second one  likely ?

In evaluating the author's argument/conclusion, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

This offers a possible  solution  to the problem described in the second explanation, but we need something that helps us determine whether the second explanation is even accurate. In other words, choice (A) provides a possible  treatment  without helping us determine whether the  diagnosis  is accurate. Thus, choice (A) does not help us evaluate the author's argument and can be eliminated.

The passage states that "last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions." Notice that this does NOT specifically say that more corn was planted only among the bioengineered cotton. Thus, if the author's conclusion is accurate, we would expect an increase in bollworm damage  throughout  those cotton-growing regions, not just to the bioengineered plantings.

In other words, if the bollworms are coming from corn, and there is now more corn throughout cotton-growing regions, there should be increased damage to ALL cotton in those regions. If that were not the case, we would have reason to question the author's conclusion. Choice (B) would be useful in evaluating the argument, so hang on to this one.

We don't care about other crops. We KNOW that the bioengineered cotton plants successfully resisted the bollworms for years, and we need to figure out why they are suddenly being damaged by the bollworms. Choice (C) does not help us evaluate the explanations described in the passage, so eliminate this one.

We are specifically told that this year's plantings are being seriously damaged  by bollworms , and we need to evaluate the explanations posed by the author. Information about other pests is irrelevant, so eliminate (D).

We are not looking for ways to SOLVE the new problem. Rather, we need to evaluate WHY the problem has developed. Choice (E) does not help us evaluate the explanations described in the passage and can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer.

kinjiGC · Answer

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

Conclusion : . So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.
Premise : This year the  plantings  are being seriously damaged by bollworms

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
 This option doesn't add any value as we are discussing cotton plantings

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
 The conclusion states that cotton plantings are overwhelmed by the bollworms. 
cotton plantings is summation of : 
1) Cotton Plantings bio-engineered to produce insecticides
2) Cotton plantings without the feature to produce insecticides.

As cotton plantings which can produce insecticides are not effected as "Bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide", 
So the other plantings should be affected so that total plantings of cotton are affected.

Hence option B) makes proper sense.

Application of variance Test.

Answer the question posted by option B is
Yes, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
Then conclusion holds

No, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are  not  suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
Then conclusion breaks.

C. Whether  other  crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
 We are not discussing other crops.

D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by  insect pests other than  bollworms
 We are not discussing insect pests other than bollworms

E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton
 How can that explain this? This option is essentially saying insecticide X is developed resistance against the insecticide by bioengineered cotton.
So Insecticide X is used against bollworms.

Hence B) . Do note the distracting introduced by GMAT "Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions". It gives an idea that corn is somehow responsible.

aurobindo · Answer

What is the conclusion here?

It is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

Lets take B. It says "Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year". Lets say the damage is high for cotton plants that do not produce insecticide. What can we conclude out of that? The damage could be because of high infestation of bollworms in that particular region, or because of natural occurence, or the artificial insecticide used was not good enough. Based on this information, how can we evaluate the conclusion reached in the argument?

What if the damage is low. Does that mean cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms? It could also mean bioengineered cotton is not producing isecticide and also there are corn-bred bollworms. 

I think B is not a perfect option. Seems to be the best among worst.

BrainLab · Answer

Found a good explanation from gmat expert:
First, identify the conclusion: it is likely that the genetically-engineered cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms instead of being attacked by bollworms that are developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide.

Evidence: More corn than usual was planted, and bollworms breed on corn.

The argument is not very convincing, as the reader is not given enough evidence to decide which of the two possible reasons for the damage (resistance or abundance of corn) is the actual reason. It may well be that both are contributing factors, nor can we be sure that there is no other factors.

Look for evidence that favors one reason over the other.

A is irrelevant
B is very helpful, for if the answer is 'yes', the corn explanation seems more plausible. If the answer is 'no', the corn explanation loses all credibility: if other cotton is not damaged to an unusual extent, then it seems unlikely that they are more worms.
C is irrelevant
D is irrelevant
E is irrelevant

aceGMAT21 · Answer

IMPORTANT ANALYSIS POINT : 
If we read closely, in the beginning of the argument they are talking about the  plantings of bioengineered cotton , but notice that later they are talking about the  PLANTING as a whole is being damaged . So, from here itself we get a hint that,

Plantings of cotton = Plantings of bioengineered cotton + Plantings of non-bioengineered cotton

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSAL ARGUMENT , 
First note the  CORRELATION , More Corn planted throughout cotton-growing regions, More bollworms, thus more damage to the plantings of cotton
 Conclusion  -- So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

APPLYING VARIANCE TEST TO EACH AND EVERY OPTION.
  
 A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide 
 Yes, corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide. How does that affect the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms?? Its totally Irrelevant with respect to the current perspective. Lets see how,
The argument says,  bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.  So, the corn was planted last year itself and knowing that corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide is of no use now/currently, as the corn is already planted last year. If this fact was known before hand then it could have helped to control the population of bollworms in corns and thereby, in cotton and thus, could have affected the conclusion in hand. But knowing this fact now is totally irrelevant as the corn is already planted and BOLLWORMs have already bred. INCORRECT.

B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year 
 Yes, plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year. This supports the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. Its not the bioengineered one but the non-bioengineered which is causing the trouble. The bioengineered one is producing its insecticides and the bollworms are not resistant to it, means bollworms are causing damage to non-bioengineered but the bioengineered ones.
No, will weaken the conclusion. Its just the opposite. CORRECT.

C. Whether  other crops  that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them 
 Yes, other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them. This does not affect the conclusion at all. It even does not matter whether other bioengineered crops were able to resist pests or not. We are exclusively concerned with the plantings of cotton. It does not affect the conclusion that -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. INCORRECT.

D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged  by insect pests other than bollworms  
 Yes, plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms. it is again irrelevant to the conclusion in hand -- cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. As we are specifically concerned with corn-bred bollworms not any other insect pests. INCORRECT.
 
 E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton 
 Its clearly given in the argument that Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. So this option statement is totally irrelevant. INCORRECT.

If we see clearly options C, D, and E are totally irrelevant. Option A might cause a doubt, but if we read the argument closely, option A can be quickly eliminated.

zoezhuyan · Answer

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?

A. Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide
B. Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
C. Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them
D. Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms
E. Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

Dear  mikemcgarry ,  GMATNinja ,  GMATNinjaTwo ,  MagooshExpert  Carolyn,  sayantanc2k ,

I am not sure whether I complete understand the prompt, please help to clarify. 
Especially when I read “ Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide ”, Does it mean developing resistance is not the cause? 
likewise, "it is not necessarily true" means it is not true, 
so I can neglect this cause -- developing resistance, right?

Then I need find an answer choice to evaluate whether the planting of bioengineered cotton suffered seriously damaged because of corn-bred bollworms, right? 
Per choice B,  Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
 
#1 )If non bioengineered cotton does suffered the damage, then corn-bred bollworms did cause the damage, --  strenghten 
#2) If non bioengineered cotton does not suffered the damage, then other factor caused the damage, -- yes,  weaken  
but I wonder the cause should be developing resistance, or other factor except neither con-bored bollworms nor developing resistance? 
I am not sure whether should I consider developing resistance a cause, because it confuses me a lot that “Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide”.

genuinely need your help.
 
Thanks in advance

Have a nice day
>_~

GMATNinja · Answer

First of all, I have some good news... we are currently working on a QOTD post for this very question! Stay tuned for a detailed explanation.

For now, let me try to help with your questions:

If something is not necessarily true, it might be true and it might not be true. Consider the following example:

Our company's revenues will increase next year. That does not necessarily mean that our profits will increase.

Does that mean that profits will NOT increase? We don't know. Profits might increase and they might not. The point is that we cannot determine whether the profits will increase just because revenues will increase. Profits  might  increase if revenues increase. But profits will not  necessarily  increase just because revenue increases.

In this passage, we are told that bollworms are seriously damaging cotton plantings this year. That  might  be evidence that bollworms are developing a resistance to the insecticide. But just because bollworms are damaging the plantings does not  necessarily  mean that bollworms are developing a resistance to the insecticide. In other words, based on the evidence (damage to plantings), we cannot determine whether bollworms have developed a resistance.

THEN the author presents further evidence: " Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions." According to the author, this additional evidence suggests that bollworms have NOT developed a resistance.

Based on the initial evidence (damage to cotton plantings), we can't tell whether bollworms have developed a resistance. The additional evidence (more corn than usual) provides an alternative explanation for the initial evidence. Thus, in light of the additional evidence, the author believes that the bollworms have NOT developed a resistance. Instead, "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms."

Hopefully that helps!

dcummins · Answer

Some info from powerscore on evaluate the argument type questions:
  - EA questions require you to select a question, statistic, or additional info. that would either strengthen or weaken the argument
- EA questions are solved via the Variance Test: pose polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and evaluate the impact on the conclusion; a correct response will both strengthen and weaken the argument

Argument : it is likely that the bioengineered cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms
P1 : Bollworms typically breed on corn and last year there was more corn planted throughout cotton-growing regions
P2: This year the plantings have taken damage from bollworms despite the fact the Bioengineered plantings generally sustain little damage from bollworms 
CP: This does not mean that Bollworms are necessarily resistant to the natural insecticide occuring in the bioengineered plantings

What should we evaluate to determine the 
  (A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide 
 Indirectly I had thought that this answer choice would pass the variance test because if corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide then perhaps it would have meant that bollworm populations are kept at bay, but this doesn't prevent the likelihood that bollworms could have developed a resistance to the natural insecticides of either cotton/ corn and thus it may not negate the fact that damage done by BWorms was greater this year.

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year
Variance test:  
Yes- all cotton in general is suffering from more bollworm damage this year than usual --> Conclusion is supported
No - plantings of cotton that do not produce insecticide naturally are not suffering from unusual damage this year, so it's just the bioengineered cotton. Bollworm population may be the same across non-bio engineered and bioengineered, but the bollworms may just be more attracted to the bioengineered cotton, thus the conclusion that the cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms may not necessarily be true.

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them  
This answer choice attempts to parallel logic between another crop and cotton, but what might be true of other bioengineered crops may not be true for cotton.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms 
 Whether other insects damage the cotton in question is irrelevant to the argument that this year bioengineered cotton has been overrun by corn-bred bollworms.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

Whether there are insecticides that can be used to contain the damage neither negates or reinforces the argument that this year bioengineered cotton has been overrun by corn-bred bollworms.

Chelsea212 · Answer

Hi everyone! There seems to have been a lot of great responses on this question already but I thought I would also share my perspective here in case a few of the more recent commenters are still looking for their 'ah hah' moment. Again, as with all of my posts, I am  NotAnExpert , simply a current GMAT student that is using the forum as a place to learn and share my learnings.

1. Read and compartmentalize  -  Right off the bat, this passage uses a word I have never heard of, bollworms, a lot - 6 times! Also, the word corn and insecticide appear a lot, and the repetition of words often just makes reading a passage very annoying. For some reason, I find it similar to swatting away flies. I end up just shortening the word Bollworm to B in my had and it just makes my reading so much smoother without compromising any understanding.

Now on to the meat part - I've categorized each sentence in my mind, and the conclusion is just the final sentence. As I read, I paraphrased the question somewhere along the lines of - Bioengineered cotton has internal insecticide, not impacted by Bollworm until this year. Bollworms not necessarily building resistance to cotton. Bollworms breed on corn, this year more corn than usual, therefore corn-bred bollworms fault.
 
 2. Pre-think when possible - always!    - Curious and cruiouser...I actually started thinking 'what if there is non-bioengineered cotton? is that okay?' I think this was a rare thought for me, usually I'm not the best at pre-thinking for evaluate the argument. If you're in the same boat as me, I wouldn't fret. Move to the choices and think about what question you would want answered.

3. Find 4 wrong answers  - Now this might sounds plain obvious, but...focus on the conclusion and what would help you evaluate its merits!
 
(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide  - The conclusion was that cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. Does the information in this answer choice lead you to any more confidence in judging the argument? Even if corn could produce insecticide, they presumably bred bollworms, and hence I'm getting nowhere on evaluating the conclusion made.
 
(B) Whether plantings of cotton that do not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year  -  Bingo!  Yup, if there are non-bioengineered cotton plants out there and they're suffering form lots of damage from bollworms -  alongside their insceticide producing cotton plant peers  - then I can make a more informed decision on the merits of the conclusion.
 
(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them  - Questioning the validity of insecticide resistance will not help us. Regardless of whether the cotton plants are sort-of resistant, or totally-resistant, they would be this way every year. As a result, knowing this information would not help us get a better grasp of if this year, the high volume of corn-bred bollworms is the reason for an abnormally high crop damage.
 
(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms  - Eh, even if they were frequently damaged by other insects, I still can't get a better handle on if the reason why they damaged so much this year was because of corn-bred bollworms.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton  - Even if there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms resistant to insecticide, the problem is that the damage has already been done and we am trying to figure out if the corn-bred bollworms were the culprit.

Hopefully this helps some folks out! As always, feedback and comments are always welcome.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

This is what the argument says:

Bioengineered cotton produces its own insecticide against bollworm. It was effective till last year.
This year, bollworm is hurting cotton crop. 
But this does not mean that bollworm has developed resistance to the insecticide. A lot of corn was produced last year which bred too many bollworms so that may be the reason of too many boll worms destroying the cotton crop this year. The insecticide is perhaps being ineffective because of too many bollworms.

All in all, the argument says this: it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms

What will help in evaluating this? What will help in establishing whether the damage is because of too many corn-bred bollworms - whether cotton insecticide is still effective

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide

This is irrelevant. What we could do in the future doesn't matter. Our question right now is - why is cotton getting destroyed by bollworm this year?

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year

Correct. We have bioengineered cotton that produces insecticide so it doesn't get damaged by bollworm. The non-bioengineered cotton gets damaged by bollworm. This year, we see that bio cotton is also getting destroyed. We are proposing that this is because of too many bollworm. So we should try to find out whether non-bio cotton is also suffering unusual damage. If there are too many bollworm, both types of cotton will suffer UNUSUAL damage - more than ordinary damage. If non bio cotton used to lose 10% of the crop, it should also lose 15% this year due to excessive population of bollworm. If non-bio cotton is suffering the same damage as every year, that means that bio cotton has lost its resistance and that is why it is suffering more this year. 
Hence, knowing this will help in evaluating the reason for damage of bio-cotton this year.

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them

Irrelevant. What goes on with other bio crops doesn't matter.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms

Irrelevant. Pests other than bollworms are irrelevant.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton

Whether there is another way to handle the bollworms is irrelevant. Our question is why bollworms are damaging the cotton crop this year.

Answer (B)

Bikki · Answer

Understanding the passage

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. 
 
• Planting of cotton, which is bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, sustained little bollworm damage.
• Bollworms are a major cause of crop failure.
• These cotton plantations have barely suffered any damage from bollworms in the past. 
• But this year has been different.

This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms.
 
• This year the damage to the plantings due to bollworms is severe compared to previous years, even though bioengineered cotton was planted.

Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. 
 
• However, it is not necessarily true that bollworms have developed resistance to the cotton's insecticide

Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. 
 
• Bollworms reproduce on corn.
• Last year, the quantity of cotton planted throughout the cotton-growing regions was more than usual.

So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.
 
• Therefore, it is probable that the insecticide in cotton plantings is unable to fight off the increased infestation of bollworms raised on the increased quantity of corn.

Conclusion:  According to the author, the cotton plantings are suffering severe bollworm damage because the plantings are not able to fight off the increased infestation of bollworms raised on corn and not because bollworms have developed resistance to the insecticide.

Pre-thinking
 
 Falsification Scenario
 
 In what scenario  – will the increased infestation of corn-bred bollworms not be responsible for the severe damage to cotton plantings this year?
 Given that: 
(i) Plantings of cotton are bioengineered such that they produce their own insecticide against bollworms.
(ii) These cotton plantations have barely suffered any damage from bollworms in the past.
(iii) Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions.

Thought Process

According to the author, planting cotton, which is bioengineered to stop bollworm infestation worked well until recently. Bollworms severely damaged this year's cotton plantings.
Since more cotton was planted throughout the cotton-growing regions and bollworms reproduce in corn, the insecticide in cotton plantings is unable to fight off the increased number of bollworms.

Falsification condition:  What if the effectiveness of the bioengineered insecticides was lowered due to some other factors?
If due to environmental factors or due to changes in the soil, the effectiveness or potency of the insecticides has dropped, then the cause for additional damage to cotton plantings will not be due to increased bollworms. This condition would break the author's conclusion.

Assumption:  The effectiveness of the bioengineered insecticides was lowered.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide  INCORRECT 
• This option talks about a future possibility which has nothing to do with the current situation. At present, it is a fact that bollworms thrive on corn. Therefore, this option is incorrect.

(B) Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year  CORRECT 
• If the cotton planting that does not produce insecticide is suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, then the insecticide effectiveness/potency has reduced in the cotton plantings that produce insecticides. This is alone the lines of our pre-thinking assumption.
• Variance test
o Yes - plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
o Effectiveness or potency of the insecticides in cotton planting has reduced; this strengthens our belief in the conclusion.
o No - plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.
o Effectiveness or potency of the insecticides in cotton planting has not reduced; this weakens our belief in the conclusion.
o Therefore, this is the correct choice.

(C) Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them  INCORRECT 
• The findings of this evaluation question will not help us because it not necessary that successful resistance to pests of other crops would mean that cotton crops will also successfully resist pests. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

(D) Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms  INCORRECT 
• The bioengineered plantings can fight off bollworms. Whether it is effective against any other insect pests or not, will not answer the question as to why this year the plantings are unable to fight off the bollworms.
• Thus, this choice is incorrect.

(E) Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton  INCORRECT 
• The passage talks about the present scenario where some insecticides have failed to fight off bollworm infestation. The use of other insecticides is not pertinent to the passage. This information is outside the scope of the passage and, therefore, is the incorrect choice.

shanks2020 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma

The given argument talks about plantings of cotton bioengineered...And the follow-up also mentions "THE" plantings. That means it refers to the bioengineered plantings only. Then why are we considered non-bioengineered plantings? What gives the confirmation that they were also present together?

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument talks about insecticide producing cotton. To evaluate whether insecticide is effective or not, we will compare it with non-insecticide producing cotton. It is relevant. Just because the argument does not mention it, we cannot say that we should ignore the option. They may not be present together but we cannot say that all cotton has been converted to insecticide producing cotton. When the option is telling us that we should compare the two, it means there are fields of regular cotton too. 
Whether a new piece of info is relevant or not needs to be evaluated in every question. Something about say jute may not be relevant here.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

This is An Evaluate the Argument type of question. This type of question requires us to identify information (an additional premise) that will help us decide whether the given conclusion is valid or not. So, the additional piece of information may either strengthen or weaken the conclusion.

The conclusion of the argument is that it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. 
The argument provides the following pieces of information:
-bollworms are a major cause of crop failure
-plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms sustained hardly any damage from bollworms until this year
-this year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms
-however, the damage is not necessarily because bollworms are developing resistance to the cotton’s insecticide
-bollworms breed on corn
-last year, more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions

We are looking for information to understand the reason that the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. One reason could be that bollworms have developed a resistance to the plantings, but that reason is more or less ruled out by the passage by the statement that bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. The reason provided by the passage is that the cotton is likely simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.

Option A provides a way in which the bollworm problem can be handled, but does not provide information to show whether the problem is indeed because of the corn-bred bollworms. So, Option A can be eliminated.

The argument states that the bioengineered plantings of cotton sustained hardly any damage until this year. It is only this year that they are being seriously damaged by bollworms. This option does not provide information to clarify whether the damage is caused by corn-bred bollworms. Other plants are irrelevant to the argument. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

The passage deals with damage caused by bollworms; other pests are not relevant to the argument. Since this option mentions other pests, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E mentions a way to solve the problem, especially if the problem is caused by bollworms developing resistance to the bio-engineered plantings. This option does not provide information to validate the likelihood that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Option B provides information that would help to clarify whether the damage is caused by corn-bred bollworms. 
The passage states that last year, more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions and that bollworms breed on corn. 
If there is more corn and therefore more bollworm infestation due to the corn in the cotton-growing regions, the bollworms could infest the cotton plantings too. And if it is throughout the cotton-growing regions, the pest would also affect the non-bio-engineered plantings of cotton. 
So then, if plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, it is likely that the damage is indeed caused by corn-bred bollworms. 
If the plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are not suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year, then it is not likely that the damage is cause by the corn-bred bollworms. 
So, this option would be helpful in evaluating the argument.  Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

beeblebrox · Answer

Hi  AndrewN ,

The questions clearly states that  Bio-engineered cotton  which usually sustain little damage, suffered  more than little damage  this year. And it is not the case that worms are developing  any resistance to the insecticide . But still they suffered more than what what they would suffer in previous years.

My question is how is option B of any help in evaluation?

(B)Whether plantings of  cotton that does not produce the insecticide  are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year.

How does it matter whether they are suffering extensively or not? Bio-engineered cotton should ideally sustain little damage when attacked by bollworms  But they suffered more than that. How can we pivot over suffering of normal cotton on the more than average damage of Bio-engineered cotton? We know from the stem that more corn was grown in areas where cotton is grown. And I understand that Bollworms breed on them & hence they were more in number, but why is there more dame to engineered cotton.

I am unable to wrap my head around this.

Can you please help?

Best,

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  beeblebrox . This is a classic case of using a control group to measure the effects of some agent, which happens to be bollworms here, on a larger population—in this instance, cotton crops. If you wanted to test the effects of pesticides, you could find two plots of land that were sufficiently far apart (to prevent cross-contamination) and were also sufficiently similar (so no desert in one plot, jungle in the other), then plant the same crops, water them the same way, and so on, but spray pesticides on only one of those plots. The difference between plots in the number of pest visitations or infestations, as we might label them, might then reasonably implicate pesticides as the factor that led to any measurable differences.

In this case, the pesticides are engineered into some of the cotton plants (which we can call GMOs), while other cotton plants have been left alone (non-GMOs). Comparing the damage from bollworms between the GMO and non-GMO crops might lend credence to the argument that the bollworms  are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide , but are thriving because  all  cotton in the region has been    overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms . In other words, the control group matters because without it, the argument presented is purely speculative. Corn simply happens to be an introduced element that takes our eye off the real culprit, the bollworm.

I see many fine responses above from the likes of  KarishmaB  and  GMATNinja , so I feel especially honored that you would think to ask for my view on the answer choice. If you still have doubts, though, feel free to follow up.

- Andrew

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

GMATNinja  hi expert, I cannot understand the logic of this question. What we only nee to care is whether bollworms develop resistance to bioengineered cotton, why do we need to care where bollworms come from?(from corn or elsewhere) 
Also I cannot understand why B is the answer. B says whether ordinary cotton(not bioengineered) suffer damage, but we don’t care this cuz it has nothing to do with whether bollworms develop resistance. 
Besides, I think C is better cuz it says whether other bioengineered crops can resist bollworms. If all other bioengineered crops cannot resist, that means bollworms successfully developed resistance to bioengineered crops including the bioengineered cotton. Could you kindly address my issue? Much thanks.

GMATNinja · Answer

The author concludes "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." In other words, this year's cotton plantings were not "seriously damaged" because bollworms developed resistance to the cotton's bioengineered insecticide. Instead, lots of bollworms bred on corn, and then "overwhelmed" the cotton.

In other words, the author believes the cotton was damaged this year because it was overwhelmed by bollworms that bred on corn. However, an alternative explanation could be that the bollworms developed resistance to the insecticide. To strengthen the conclusion, the author rejects this alternative explanation.

Let's consider (C):

Notice that this answer choice does not address the issue of insecticides against  bollworms  in particular. It only talks about "pests" in general. Additionally, it doesn't talk about  cotton , but about "other crops." To draw a conclusion about cotton or bollworms from this information would require a big leap.

So, since (C) wouldn't give us any relevant information to evaluate the argument, it's incorrect.

Here's (B) again:
 
What if cotton that doesn't produce insecticide suffered "unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year?" How would that affect the conclusion?

Well, it would indicate that cotton  without  insecticide suffered more damage than cotton  with  insecticide. This would suggest that the insecticide was in fact protecting cotton from bollworms. In other words, it would show that the bollworms had not developed resistance to the insecticide. How would this affect the argument?

Keep in mind that the author's argument is supported by the idea that "bollworms are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide." The idea that bollworms might have developed resistance to the insecticide is an alternative explanation which the author rejects. Since (B) could help reject this alternative explanation, it would help us evaluate the argument. So (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!

shailendra010786 · Answer

GMAT NiNja, Andrew N or any expert please help....

conclusion is "it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms." so are you suggesting that the COTTON discussed in conclusion is not BIOENGINEERED COTTON but combination of BIOENGINEERED COTTON and NON BIOENGINEERED COTTON?
IF it is so how can we avoid these silly mistakes as the whole paragraph talked about BIOENGINEERED COTTON.??? plz help. thanks

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide again

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

Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide again

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