The new research on pesticides that cost the government about half

Question

The new research on pesticides that cost the government about half a million dollars has led to the development of the so-called improved version of commonly used pesticides. According to the claims, the new, improved pesticides will save the crops from common diseases. A closer examination will suggest that the currently used pesticides anyway save the crops from all the common diseases and are significantly cheaper as well. Surely there was no point in spending taxpayers’ money in this research.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s conclusion?

A. The currently used pesticides are relatively easier to use.
B. The new pesticides require cold storage which adds to the cost for the farmers.
C. It is mandated by a government policy that a fixed amount of taxpayers’ money be dedicated to research activities.
D. Any innovation is first treated with skepticism; the new pesticides are no different.
E. The effect of new pesticides lasts considerably longer than that of the currently used pesticides.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

sumit99kr · Answer

Conclusion- Surely there was no point in spending taxpayers’ money in this research.

Assumption- currently used pesticides are at par with newly developed with in terms of its benefits.

Option E targets this assumption, newly developed ones provide benefits for longer duration and hence the research cost can well be justified. Less frequently we use the pesticides, more money can be saved in terms of its cost.

Option A & B somewhat strengthens the conclusion. Hence Out.

Option D is neutral, it doesn't talks about research cost and benefits of pesticides. Hence Out. 
 
Option C, targets "no point in spending", but it leaves the discussion open that if it is mandatory to spend some amount of taxpayers money in reseach, is the govt okay even if the ROI on research is negative.

Hence I believe E is the correct choice.

Posted from my mobile device

GMATking94 · Answer

Clearly E weakens the conclusion as it will save costs for the government due to less usage.

Bunuel · Answer

Experts' Global Video Explanation:

EXY7YO7OEkg

Madhvendrasinh · Answer

I also feel that E should be the answer, but there is a    huge flaw    in option   E  .
As E states that new pesticide has longer effect but it is also provided in the passage that the new pesticide is more costly than old pesticide. If we are considering the fact that new one is long lasting, we also have to consider the price factor.

Because if the pesticide last   2 times longer   than older pesticide but is   10 times more costly   then older pesticide than having a longer effect does not prove as weakening point because the harm done by the cost would be too much.

This makes this option ambiguous and incomplete to weaken.

The new research on pesticides that cost the government about half

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 new research on pesticides that cost the government about half

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