#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!