Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds

[vietst]

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
OA is C.
Could you help me this question?

[RonPurewal]

try to diagram the argument, numbering each of the sentences and using the 'THEREFORE TEST' (try 'x, therefore y' and 'y, therefore x', and see which, if either, of them makes sense).

1 Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2 Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3 Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4 However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

the structure of this argument is:
1 = background fact
2, therefore 3
however, 4 (which weakens conclusion 3)

if you figure out that much, then it's clear that #3 is the CONCLUSION. (that's the single most important thing you can do on critical reasoning: figure out what's the conclusion.)

since neither of the boldface portions is the conclusion, choice a and choice d are dead. (both of those claim that the second part is the conclusion.)

now, analyze the boldface parts a little better:
#2 (the first boldface) serves as a premise for #3
#4 (the second bold) serves as a counterpoint to #3, weakening the lasting value of the conclusion
...which is basically what choice c says.

choice b is tempting, but you should note that the argument is specifically designed to point out that this 'state of affairs' CAN affect the outcome. choice e is nonsensical, as the two boldfaces are on completely opposite sides of the proverbial fence.

[Guest]

Conclusion is ", the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread"

[StaceyKoprince]

This is a tough one - there are essentially two conclusions: the main point of view and a contrasting point of view.

The key thing to notice is, first, the two boldface statements are on opposite sides of the fence, as Ron says. Second, the first boldface is a fact that is used to support sentence 3. The second boldface goes against sentence 3 - it can't actually go against sentence 2, since S2 is a fact, but it does go against the main point of view given in S3.

I want a choice that is consistent with the above relationships.

A) The first is not context (or background) - it is a premise used to draw a conclusion. The second is not the main point of view but a contrasting point of view. (This one also implies the two are on the same side of the fence and they are not!)

B) The first part is fine, but the second is not. The argument does not deny that the second boldface will be part of the outcome - rather, it says that the contrasting viewpoint is likely to overcome the main point of view.

C) correct

D) The author does not actually attempt to defend either conclusion - it just presents the two. This choice also says the two are on the same side of the fence when they're not.

E) This one says the two are on the same side of the fence.

[smilepinks]

try to diagram the argument, numbering each of the sentences and using the 'THEREFORE TEST' (try 'x, therefore y' and 'y, therefore x', and see which, if either, of them makes sense).

1 Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2 Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3 Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4 However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

the structure of this argument is:
1 = background fact
2, therefore 3
however, 4 (which weakens conclusion 3)

if you figure out that much, then it's clear that #3 is the CONCLUSION. (that's the single most important thing you can do on critical reasoning: figure out what's the conclusion.)

since neither of the boldface portions is the conclusion, choice a and choice d are dead. (both of those claim that the second part is the conclusion.)

now, analyze the boldface parts a little better:
#2 (the first boldface) serves as a premise for #3
#4 (the second bold) serves as a counterpoint to #3, weakening the lasting value of the conclusion
...which is basically what choice c says.

choice b is tempting, but you should note that the argument is specifically designed to point out that this 'state of affairs' CAN affect the outcome. choice e is nonsensical, as the two boldfaces are on completely opposite sides of the proverbial fence.

Ron, Can you please explain why the statement-the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread- is not the main conclusion of the argument and 3 is ?

[RenaldoW]

I am a little confuse with the terminology used in bold face questions. What is the difference between prediction, claim, evidence, and consideration?

Thanks,

[RonPurewal]

try to diagram the argument, numbering each of the sentences and using the 'THEREFORE TEST' (try 'x, therefore y' and 'y, therefore x', and see which, if either, of them makes sense).

1 Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage.
2 Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones.
3 Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer.
4 However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

the structure of this argument is:
1 = background fact
2, therefore 3
however, 4 (which weakens conclusion 3)

if you figure out that much, then it's clear that #3 is the CONCLUSION. (that's the single most important thing you can do on critical reasoning: figure out what's the conclusion.)

since neither of the boldface portions is the conclusion, choice a and choice d are dead. (both of those claim that the second part is the conclusion.)

now, analyze the boldface parts a little better:
#2 (the first boldface) serves as a premise for #3
#4 (the second bold) serves as a counterpoint to #3, weakening the lasting value of the conclusion
...which is basically what choice c says.

choice b is tempting, but you should note that the argument is specifically designed to point out that this 'state of affairs' CAN affect the outcome. choice e is nonsensical, as the two boldfaces are on completely opposite sides of the proverbial fence.

Ron, Can you please explain why the statement-the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread- is not the main conclusion of the argument and 3 is ?

the entire rest of the argument is structured to build up to #3; #4 is an afterthought (which does, however, weaken #3).

basically, you have an argument, with a conclusion, and then a random final statement that weakens this conclusion somewhat. there's no point in trying to decide the question of which of #3 and #4 is the "main" statement, since none of the answer choices draws such a distinction.

[RonPurewal]

I am a little confuse with the terminology used in bold face questions. What is the difference between prediction, claim, evidence, and consideration?

Thanks,

"prediction" means that the argument is predicting that something will happen.
if there is a prediction, it MUST be the conclusion of the argument, unless it is being used as the basis for future predictions (which it probably won't).

a claim is a statement that is not a fact, and requires an argument and/or supporting evidence.

evidence is FACTUAL information that is used to support a claim.

a consideration can be either a fact or a claim; it's used to support some other claim/conclusion.

[vanquish1984]

Hi all

There is actually an error in the question posted is above. The 2nd boldface is statement 3. This Gmat prep question sud read (& i have triple checked it!) :

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
OA remains as C.

I have read the analysis provided by the various instructors above and am totally pulzzed why the ans is not A. Since as mentioned above, Boldface 1 and sentence #1 is fact i.e. sets the context of the argument (the context given being a fact), and Boldface 2 and sentence #3 is conclusion.

Could anybody explain why C is correct compare to A in the light of the correct version of the question? I honestly cannot see how the first boldface predicts any outcome - it merely states e fact that the GE seeds produce plants higly resistant to insects.

Additionally, could someone help explain what is the meaning of the following terms gmat uses on CR, particularly whether they are "signal" words for Facts or Claims.
E.g. "context for the argument"; "a development"; "a state of affair"

I have reviewed Thurs with Ron recording on CR Boldface and tried to solve this problem using his "Facts /Claims" method to arrive at ans A but i didn't manage to get the correct ans - could Ron or anyone point out my error?

Many thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi all

There is actually an error in the question posted is above. The 2nd boldface is statement 3. This Gmat prep question sud read (& i have triple checked it!) :

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
OA remains as C.

I have read the analysis provided by the various instructors above and am totally pulzzed why the ans is not A. Since as mentioned above, Boldface 1 and sentence #1 is fact i.e. sets the context of the argument (the context given being a fact), and Boldface 2 and sentence #3 is conclusion.

Could anybody explain why C is correct compare to A in the light of the correct version of the question? I honestly cannot see how the first boldface predicts any outcome - it merely states e fact that the GE seeds produce plants higly resistant to insects.

Additionally, could someone help explain what is the meaning of the following terms gmat uses on CR, particularly whether they are "signal" words for Facts or Claims.
E.g. "context for the argument"; "a development"; "a state of affair"

I have reviewed Thurs with Ron recording on CR Boldface and tried to solve this problem using his "Facts /Claims" method to arrive at ans A but i didn't manage to get the correct ans - could Ron or anyone point out my error?

Many thanks

(a) doesn't make sense because the second boldface in this case is not really a claim; it's a logical consequence of the preceding fact, and so should be regarded as another fact. (remember that the word "conclusion" should only be used to refer to claims, not facts.)

(c) still makes sense, because the fourth sentence is "a certain outcome" of the first sentence; the third sentence is a consideration that is on the other side. (note that "consideration" is a word that can be used to refer to either claims or facts.)

--

by the way, please do not use abbreviations such as "sud"; please take the extra fraction of a second to type out full words such as "should", so that the posts are easier for everyone to read. thanks.

[shans.bgp]

Hi all

There is actually an error in the question posted is above. The 2nd boldface is statement 3. This Gmat prep question sud read (& i have triple checked it!) :

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
OA remains as C.

I have read the analysis provided by the various instructors above and am totally pulzzed why the ans is not A. Since as mentioned above, Boldface 1 and sentence #1 is fact i.e. sets the context of the argument (the context given being a fact), and Boldface 2 and sentence #3 is conclusion.

Could anybody explain why C is correct compare to A in the light of the correct version of the question? I honestly cannot see how the first boldface predicts any outcome - it merely states e fact that the GE seeds produce plants higly resistant to insects.

Additionally, could someone help explain what is the meaning of the following terms gmat uses on CR, particularly whether they are "signal" words for Facts or Claims.
E.g. "context for the argument"; "a development"; "a state of affair"

I have reviewed Thurs with Ron recording on CR Boldface and tried to solve this problem using his "Facts /Claims" method to arrive at ans A but i didn't manage to get the correct ans - could Ron or anyone point out my error?

Many thanks

(a) doesn't make sense because the second boldface in this case is not really a claim; it's a logical consequence of the preceding fact, and so should be regarded as another fact. (remember that the word "conclusion" should only be used to refer to claims, not facts.)

(c) still makes sense, because the fourth sentence is "a certain outcome" of the first sentence; the third sentence is a consideration that is on the other side. (note that "consideration" is a word that can be used to refer to either claims or facts.)

--

by the way, please do not use abbreviations such as "sud"; please take the extra fraction of a second to type out full words such as "should", so that the posts are easier for everyone to read. thanks.

Hi Ron,
the question has changed and accordingly the answer should also. I think A should be the answer now.
please guide.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
the question has changed and accordingly the answer should also. I think A should be the answer now.
please guide.

(a) is wrong, because the second sentence is, well, not the main point.
the point of the argument is to state this lack of financial incentives for farmers ... BUT THEN to go on and say that "the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread", i.e., to make a prediction that essentially runs in the other direction.
this is most accurately described by choice (c), so that's the answer.

more generally, if something actually is the main point / conclusion of a sentence, then the author will not use it as a stepping-stone on which to continue the argument.

[mcmebk]

Hi all

There is actually an error in the question posted is above. The 2nd boldface is statement 3. This Gmat prep question sud read (& i have triple checked it!) :

Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.
In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first supplies a context for the argument; the second is the argument's main conclusion.
(B) The first introduces a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second is a state of affairs that the argument denies will be part of that outcome.
(C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction.
(D) The first provides evidence to support a prediction that the argument seeks to defend; the second is that prediction.
(E) The first and the second each provide evidence to support the argument's main conclusion.
OA remains as C.

I have read the analysis provided by the various instructors above and am totally pulzzed why the ans is not A. Since as mentioned above, Boldface 1 and sentence #1 is fact i.e. sets the context of the argument (the context given being a fact), and Boldface 2 and sentence #3 is conclusion.

Could anybody explain why C is correct compare to A in the light of the correct version of the question? I honestly cannot see how the first boldface predicts any outcome - it merely states e fact that the GE seeds produce plants higly resistant to insects.

Additionally, could someone help explain what is the meaning of the following terms gmat uses on CR, particularly whether they are "signal" words for Facts or Claims.
E.g. "context for the argument"; "a development"; "a state of affair"

I have reviewed Thurs with Ron recording on CR Boldface and tried to solve this problem using his "Facts /Claims" method to arrive at ans A but i didn't manage to get the correct ans - could Ron or anyone point out my error?

Many thanks

(a) doesn't make sense because the second boldface in this case is not really a claim; it's a logical consequence of the preceding fact, and so should be regarded as another fact. (remember that the word "conclusion" should only be used to refer to claims, not facts.)

(c) still makes sense, because the fourth sentence is "a certain outcome" of the first sentence; the third sentence is a consideration that is on the other side. (note that "consideration" is a word that can be used to refer to either claims or facts.)

--

by the way, please do not use abbreviations such as "sud"; please take the extra fraction of a second to type out full words such as "should", so that the posts are easier for everyone to read. thanks.

Hi Ron

I am sorry to bother you again. I just don't know how to solve this problem.

Basically I used premise/conclusion strategy to solve this problem and ended up with answer A.

Since "the most critical thing in CR is to find the conclusion" , I think sentence 4 is the conclusion, it is like if you are going to state the trend "Apple computer is going to become popular", you would say:

Apple computer is very nice but expensive, so not so many people can afford it, but since people's earnings is increasing, apple computer is going to be very popular in the future.

Why is "not so many people can afford it", instead of "apple computer is going to be very popular in the future" the main conclusion, which is exactly the reason why the paragraph above was written?

In your post you said: the second boldface in this case is not really a claim; it's a logical consequence of the preceding fact, and so should be regarded as another fact; It sounds logical enough to say "the third sentence in this case is not really a claim, but a logical consequence of the preceding fact (boldface 1)"...

For choice (C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. - The first part is correct, the second part is not accurate, because the predication is that "savings on pesticides will not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer", yet the boldface 2 doesn't deny such predication by stating the savings will compensate the cost, it basically said "The usage is like to become widespread" - <because the high price or greater demand of the fruits (not the savings on pesticides) will compensate for the higher costs. >

For answer A, it sounds more closely tied with what is happening, boldface 1 is a pure fact, thus a context; the boldface 2 is the conclusion.

Please kindly comment on my thinking.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

For choice (C) The first presents a development that the argument predicts will have a certain outcome; the second acknowledges a consideration that weighs against that prediction. - The first part is correct, the second part is not accurate, because the predication is that "savings on pesticides will not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer"

no; you've misidentified the prediction.

i'm not sure about this, but part of the problem may be that you are misreading the word "prediction".
specifically, you keep writing "predication", which is a completely different word that refers to a totally different kind of idea. these choices are talking about a prediction (= where someone predicts what will happen in the future).

with that in mind, it should be easier to see that the very last statement in the passage is "the prediction" -- because that's the only sentence that actually predicts a future occurrence.

the second boldface doesn't predict anything; it just uses current data to make an observation/comparison.

[harishmullapudi]

In analyzing the structure of the question. I can see two conclusions.

1. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer

2. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.


My defense in considering the second one as a conclusion is...
The last part of the sentence looks like a conclusion.

So if we have two conclusions then how can we decide the main conclusion? I think we can't perform "Therefore" test here to understand which one is the main conclusion.

Can you please explain me this...