Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
09 Mar 2024, 13:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
86% (01:41) correct
14%
(02:02)
wrong
based on 483
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Aside from yielding cotton fiber, the cotton plant produces oil-rich seeds from which oil for human consumption is extracted. The seeds contain a natural poison, however, that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive. If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Cottonseeds can also be used to feed livestock, but only after the poison they contain has been removed.
B. There is no commercial use for the poison that cottonseeds contain.
C. Biotechnological researchers believe that it will be possible to engineer poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces.
D. The poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops.
E. The cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit.
GMAT-Club-Forum-lx0t42hg.png [ 101.01 KiB | Viewed 2598 times ]
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Cottonseeds can also be used to feed livestock, but only after the poison they contain has been removed.
B. There is no commercial use for the poison that cottonseeds contain.
C. Biotechnological researchers believe that it will be possible to engineer poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces.
D. The poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops.
E. The cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit.
Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-lx0t42hg.png [ 101.01 KiB | Viewed 2598 times ]
Trying to understand why the right answer is right?
GMAT Club Tests explanations walk through concepts, shortcuts, and common traps on many questions.
See how →
09 Mar 2024, 18:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Aside from yielding cotton fiber, the cotton plant produces oil-rich seeds from which oil for human consumption is extracted. The seeds contain a natural poison, however, that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive. If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The seeds contain a natural poison ... that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive.
So, the reasoning of the argument is that, since the expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil expensive, if cotton without the poison can be created, cottonseed oil will be cheaper to produce.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
The correct answer will provide information indicating that, even though the premises are true, the conclusion may not be.
A. Cottonseeds can also be used to feed livestock, but only after the poison they contain has been removed.
The information provided by this choice indicates that there is anothoer reason to create cotton without the poison, to produce cottonseeds suitable for livestock feed.
At the same time, the fact that there is another reason to create cotton without the poison doesn't weaken the case for the conclusion of this argument, which is specifically about producing cottonseed oil less expensively.
In other words, this general fact about another use of cottonseeds has no bearing on whether creating cotton without the poison will enable less expensive production of cottonseed oil.
Eliminate.
B. There is no commercial use for the poison that cottonseeds contain.
The correct answer must weaken the case for the conclusion that "If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand."
However, if anything, this choice is in line with the argument.
After all, if there's no commercial use for the poison, then one possible downside to creating cotton without the poison, loss of a commercial benefit, is ruled out.
Eliminate.
C. Biotechnological researchers believe that it will be possible to engineer poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces.
If anything, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument.
After all, if it's possible to produce poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces then the possibility that there will be some kind of new expense associated with a reduction in fiber quality is eliminated.
The elimination of that possibiliity helps to confirm that, "If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply."
Eliminate.
D. The poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops.
This choice may seem irrelevant since it's about birds eating seeds rather than about producing cottonseed oil. However, if we consider this choice carefully, we can make the following common-sense connection.
If it's true that the poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops, then if cotton without the poison is created, it won't be protected from birds the way cotton usually is. In that case, birds will likely start eating the cottonseeds, in which case producing cottonseed oil will involve new costs, the costs associated with keeping birds from eating the seeds.
If producing cottonseed oil from cotton without the poison would likely involve such new costs, then it could be that it won't be any cheaper than producing it from the cotton with the poison.
So, this choice casts doubt on the conclusion and weakens the argument.
Keep.
E. The cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit.
This choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument.
After all, if the cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit, then it's likely that, through creating cotton without the poison, cottonseed oil can be made more cheaply than it otherwise would be. After all, in that case, the cost of making cottonseed oil using the cotton with the poison isn't going down any time soon.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: D
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The seeds contain a natural poison ... that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive.
So, the reasoning of the argument is that, since the expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil expensive, if cotton without the poison can be created, cottonseed oil will be cheaper to produce.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
The correct answer will provide information indicating that, even though the premises are true, the conclusion may not be.
A. Cottonseeds can also be used to feed livestock, but only after the poison they contain has been removed.
The information provided by this choice indicates that there is anothoer reason to create cotton without the poison, to produce cottonseeds suitable for livestock feed.
At the same time, the fact that there is another reason to create cotton without the poison doesn't weaken the case for the conclusion of this argument, which is specifically about producing cottonseed oil less expensively.
In other words, this general fact about another use of cottonseeds has no bearing on whether creating cotton without the poison will enable less expensive production of cottonseed oil.
Eliminate.
B. There is no commercial use for the poison that cottonseeds contain.
The correct answer must weaken the case for the conclusion that "If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand."
However, if anything, this choice is in line with the argument.
After all, if there's no commercial use for the poison, then one possible downside to creating cotton without the poison, loss of a commercial benefit, is ruled out.
Eliminate.
C. Biotechnological researchers believe that it will be possible to engineer poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces.
If anything, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument.
After all, if it's possible to produce poison-free cotton without interfering with the quality of the fiber it produces then the possibility that there will be some kind of new expense associated with a reduction in fiber quality is eliminated.
The elimination of that possibiliity helps to confirm that, "If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply."
Eliminate.
D. The poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops.
This choice may seem irrelevant since it's about birds eating seeds rather than about producing cottonseed oil. However, if we consider this choice carefully, we can make the following common-sense connection.
If it's true that the poison that cottonseeds contain protects them from being eaten by birds that are serious pests of other seed crops, then if cotton without the poison is created, it won't be protected from birds the way cotton usually is. In that case, birds will likely start eating the cottonseeds, in which case producing cottonseed oil will involve new costs, the costs associated with keeping birds from eating the seeds.
If producing cottonseed oil from cotton without the poison would likely involve such new costs, then it could be that it won't be any cheaper than producing it from the cotton with the poison.
So, this choice casts doubt on the conclusion and weakens the argument.
Keep.
E. The cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit.
This choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument.
After all, if the cost of removing the poison from cottonseeds has been brought down as far as currently available techniques permit, then it's likely that, through creating cotton without the poison, cottonseed oil can be made more cheaply than it otherwise would be. After all, in that case, the cost of making cottonseed oil using the cotton with the poison isn't going down any time soon.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: D
