#26 - Farmer: Crops genetically engineered to produce

[MillerP]

I'm having difficulty eliminating "C"... As stated above "the first (assumption) is that since it is not necessary to spray the crops with insecticides, then people will not spray them with insecticides". I feel like this is nearly identical to what C is saying; if crops are never sprayed then wouldn't that be similar to the assumption that "since it's not necessary to spray GMO crops, then people will not (never) spray them"? Furthermore, wouldn't that also lead to LESS excessive use of the insecticide - since the crops are never sprayed?

This is what I arrived at using answer choice C:
"If the GMO crops are used more widely - and (assuming) they are never sprayed - then less insecticide will be used because the the OG crops are being cancelled. Therefore, less insecticide is used there will be an increased likelihood of recovery".
GMO never sprayed less insecticide less harm more likely recovery
vs. no assumption

The stimulus says they don't need to be sprayed, but doesn't that mean they still could be sprayed. I'm thinking if they're still sprayed the farmer's argument fails. So an assumption the farmer makes would be that they are not (never) sprayed?

I don't know where I'm going wrong. Can someone please point out my error? Can the GMO crops be sprayed? Or is it that GMO crops could cause other harms that we're not aware of, therefore even if they aren't sprayed their anti-bug toxins could still potentially cause proportional harm to wildlife?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

The problem with answer choice (C), Miller, is that word "never." Our conclusion is not that strong. We don't need to know that the crops are NEVER sprayed, just that they aren't sprayed excessively. When we negate answer choice (C), we get that the crops are sometimes sprayed by insecticides. That doesn't actually hurt the argument that using the genetically engineered crops more broadly will "likely" help the wildlife recover.

Hope that helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

Why in this specific example, after a stimulus with no reference to cost, is the answer about cost WRONG, whereas in other examples is cost RELEVANT and potentially correct?

[Dancingbambarina]

Surely leaving out "excessively" sprayed in answer choice A is incorrect, as it is not necessary anymore. Just like in the book with the "black dogs" example in the Assumption section, assuming ANY insecticides being sprayed is sufficient, and not necessary. Am I correct?

[Adam Tyson]

Cost is irrelevant in this case because the argument is not about whether this change would be beneficial to farmers generally, or whether it would be worth doing, etc. It's only about the effect on wildlife. Would the change be better for wildlife? The author thinks so, and that requires the assumption that the new approach (using genetically engineered crops) will be less harmful to them.

I think I understand your concern about "excessive." You're thinking that maybe switching doesn't have to be less harmful than, say, normal use, it only has to be better than excessive use, and so answer A isn't truly necessary? Perhaps, although that feels like doing too much work to find a reason to reject the answer. There's no answer better than that one, so it's still the best, even if you interpret the stimulus in that somewhat strained way.