#26 - Farmer: Crops genetically engineered to produce

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)

Here, the farmer discusses a potential advantage of using genetically engineered crops. These
crops have been genetically altered to create toxins that help them resist insect pests. Due to this
engineering, it is not necessary to spray the crops with insecticides. The farmer considers this to be a
good change, because excessive spraying of insecticides has harmed wildlife who live near the crops.
So, the farmer concludes, the increased usage of genetically engineered crops will probably help
wildlife populations recover from the damage caused by excessive spraying.

This is an Assumption question. Our prephrase is that the farmer has made at least a couple of
assumptions. The first is that since it is not necessary to spray the crops with insecticides, then
people will not spray them with insecticides. Second, the farmer assumes that the genetic changes
to the crops will not in some way damage the wildlife more than the excessive spraying of the crops
with insecticides. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will likely test either of these
assumptions.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice because it addresses the second assumption
described above. If it were not the case that genetically modified crops would cause less harm to the
wildlife than the insecticides, then the conclusion would fall apart.

Answer choice (B): Here, the answer choice deals with the effect of even a minimal reduction in the
amount of insecticide used on the crops. The benefit of the genetically engineered crops was that
their use would remove the necessity of spraying insecticides. So, the argument was not concerned
with only the minimal reduction of insecticides.

Answer choice (C): This is an interesting answer choice to follow answer choice (B). Here, the
answer deals with the other end of the extreme, with insecticides never being used on genetically
modified crops. However, the problem identified in the stimulus was not the appropriate use of
insecticides, but the excessive use of them. The conclusion does not require that insecticides will
never be used on the genetically modified crops.

Answer choice (D): While the cost implications of using genetically engineered crops versus using
insecticides is of critical importance to farmers in the real world, the farmer making the argument in
this stimulus did not address the issue of cost.

Answer choice (E): Here, the conclusion does not require that the only possible benefit of the
genetic crops to the wildlife is in the reduced use of insecticides. There may be some other benefit of
which we are unaware, and the argument does not claim to deal with all the possible benefits of the
genetically engineered crops.

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

I was not sure between A and B...
I thought B must be true to arrive at the conclusion because it is talking about "recovery". If this is not true, how do we know "...is likely to help wildlife populations to recover"?
Why is B wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer B is the inclusion of the phrase "even slightly". Our author does not need to assume that any reduction in the use of pesticides will help the wildlife recover, because he could just as easily believe that it would take a moderate or even substantial reduction to have that effect. Answer B, if true, would strengthen this argument, but it is not an assumption required by the argument because it goes too far.

Consider the negation of answer B, which would be something like "a slight reduction in the use of insecticides would not be likely to help wildlife recover". Does that destroy the argument? No, it only weakens it, and not by much. Again, while a slight reduction might make little to no difference, a moderate or large reduction still could.

Use the negation technique on these assumption questions to test your contenders, and you should find that it really helps set apart the winners from the losers.

[Hey]

I understand the explanations above. However, I'm still struggling a bit between A and B. While I understand the reduced even slightly v. no spray at all explanation, I'm getting hung on the assumption that I see is required to go from "less harm" to "recover." Because something encounters less harm, does not necessarily mean that that thing will recover. It could remain at the same level that it was at when the harm stopped, or was decreased, which is not equivalent to recovery. Because B used the language "likely to recover" I chose it instead of A. Can someone explain the less harm v. recovery conflict? In other words, how does using "less harm" instead of "recover" not make A incorrect? Thanks.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Hey,

You are right that there are still loose threads in the speaker's argument, even when we assume answer choice (A). The thing is that assumption questions do not ask us to tie together everything in the argument. You are not looking for an answer choice that proves or even strengthens the conclusion.

Because there will often be multiple necessary assumptions the speaker needs to make in an argument, it is not a good strategy to point out that the conclusion is still unproven or unconnected given the correct answer. Oftentimes the conclusion will still be unproven or tenuous after selecting the correct necessary assumption.

Let me know if this helps!

[Egonza1424]

Could someone please walk us through the steps of negating answer choice B) ?

When I did this question I correctly chose A, but improperly negating answer choice B) really gave me pause.

When I negated B), I got: “wildlife populations that have been harmed by the spraying of insecticides on crop lands are NOT likely to recover if the amount of insecticides sprayed in those crop lands is reduced even slightly.”

When I read that^ I’m like “wow, that weakens too... darn...”

Can someone please point out where I went wrong here?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Egonza,

Your negation of answer choice (B) is pretty close to perfect. The only thing that you need to remember is that when we negate statements that use unambiguous language, we want to produce more uncertain language. For example, if the original answer choice tells us "X will occur," our negation should read "X may not occur." We negate the absolute language of "will occur" to the possibility that it may not. If you negate that statement to read "X will not occur," then you provided the polar negation.

In this answer choice, the correct negation would read "Wildlife populations ... may be unlikely to recover...." The difference between this negation and the one that you provided is extremely small, so I don't think that the mistake you made is in the negation.

The real reason that this answer choice is not necessary, and why its negation does not really weaken the conclusion, has to do with the last few words of the sentence. Those last few words tell us that the statements concerns areas where croplands see "even slightly reduced" spraying of insecticides.

The argument presented in the stimulus tells us that genetically engineered crops do not need to be sprayed at all with insecticides. Since the farmer is speaking about crops that are now not sprayed at all with insecticides, we don't know if the farmer would expect the same results from areas that see a slightly reduced spraying.

In other words, the argument concerned the effects of eliminating spraying on crops. Answer choice (B) makes a claim about the effects of minimal reductions in spraying. We can't say for sure what the author must believe about reducing insecticides.

[JKP2018]

It took me ages to figure out why A is better than B. No explanations anywhere seemed to help.

My problem was that I was looking for an assumption that PROVED the argument, that made it ironclad. Answer A barely makes the argument stronger, which is why I rejected it and went with B. In addition, B uses 'recover', which seems to be the optimal keyword. If an answer doesn't say recover, then it's not proving the argument.

Unfortunately, B is actually pretty weak as well. Reducing pesticides even slightly? If we drop it by 1%, will that likely allow it to recover? Intuitively, it seems like no, you'd need a lot more, especially as the stimulus says the pesticides were excessively sprayed in the first place.

As such, neither answer A or B proves the argument. We thus need to look for a weaker assumption, one that may not prove the argument but which does not prevent the argument from being refuted. If A were not the case, if animals are still harmed despite the switch, then there can be no recovery for the animals. We thus NEED this assumption. Do we need that assumption that says a 1% drop will likely lead to recovery? No.

Answer B would be perfect and exactly what we want ... if we ignore the last two words "even slightly". That's my revelation, and that's why Answer B is wrong. Hopefully that helps other people trying to see the difference between the two.

[LSAT2018]

You are right that there are still loose threads in the speaker's argument, even when we assume answer choice (A). The thing is that assumption questions do not ask us to tie together everything in the argument. You are not looking for an answer choice that proves or even strengthens the conclusion.

Because there will often be multiple necessary assumptions the speaker needs to make in an argument, it is not a good strategy to point out that the conclusion is still unproven or unconnected given the correct answer. Oftentimes the conclusion will still be unproven or tenuous after selecting the correct necessary assumption.

I also agree with one of the user's statement that the author shifts from discussing harm in the premise to recovery in the conclusion. My prephrase was that they should be included as an assumption (while also taking into account the comparison of genetically engineered crops to spraying of insecticides). An assumption could be that genetically engineered crops that cause less harm would help wildlife population recover more than spraying of insecticides.

[Robert Carroll]

JKP,

The question type is Assumption, so never answer should ever have been evaluated by whether it proves the conclusion. Instead, you should always have been looking for an assumption necessary for the argument. If your evaluation of answers shows that none is correct, you must have identified something in the stimulus or question incorrectly.

You are correct that "even slightly" in answer choice (B) goes beyond what is necessary.

LSAT,

That sounds like a fine prephrase of a Supporter Assumption.

Robert Carroll