#15 - Twenty years ago the Republic of Rosinia produced

[lathlee]

Thank you so much Sir

[whardy21]

I chose A for my answer. I think the explanation for B is that since we known that the researchers are the blame for not focusing on yielding the high strains of potatoes, but not that they can't do it, its necessary that they are the only ones who can yield those potatoes, due to the country of Rosinia unable to produce the yields. That answer is necessary based on the conclusion of the argument.

[James Finch]

Hi W. Hardy,

Yes, this is a Supporter Assumption question, where we need to link the new element in the conclusion (new strains of potatoes) with the premises. To do that, the correct answer choice would have to show that new strains were necessary, in order to show that the selfish scientists that didn't want to develop new potato strains were to blame for the production shortfall.

Good job thinking it through!

[MeliXi]

I got this question right but was still quite uncertain about it.

Even as I read through the explanations now, I'm still a bit confused. Specifically, about this:

Admin: "The negated version of this answer choice is as follows:
Common strains of potatoes could have produced the yields last year that they once did."

To me, the negated version of B seems like it could actually support the argument. The common strains of the potatoes could have produced the yields they did last year, had the agricultural researchers been concerned with the needs of Rosinia.
I feel like that would make sense

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Meli,

Take another look at the conclusion of the argument, which is a causal conclusion, and look especially at the bolded portion: "Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher-yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease."

In other words, the conclusion is blaming agricultural researchers for the decrease specifically because they failed to develop new higher-yielding strains of potatoes.

If the opposite of answer choice B is true, then Rosinia wouldn't have needed its agricultural researchers to come up with new strains of higher-yielding potatoes to avoid a yield decrease. That's because common strains (already existing strains) could have been enough to give Rosinia the 100 million ton yield they used to have. And if common strains could've made up the difference, then we also couldn't blame the decrease in potatoes specifically on the researchers' failure to come up with a new potato strain. That invalidates the conclusion, which is what we want the negated form of the answer to do!

I hope this helps!

[fortunateking]

Dear Powerscore people,
I have a concern over choice B that doesn't "POTATOES MOST COMMONLY GROWN" has a scope issue? As the author is talking about the overall product (including all strains) instead of the most common one. Please correct me.

[Robert Carroll]

fortunateking,

The most common ones are going to have to account for most of the growth, by definition of "most commonly grown". So the scope is just definitionally "whatever is most commonly grown there."

Robert Carroll