Loading...
Aside from yielding cotton fiber, the cotton plant produces oil-rich seeds from which oil for human consumption is extracted. The seeds contain a natural poison, however, that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive. If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Aside from yielding cotton fiber, the cotton plant produces oil-rich seeds from which oil for human consumption is extracted. |
|
| The seeds contain a natural poison, however, that must be carefully removed before the oil is extracted. |
|
| The expense of removing the poison makes cottonseed oil relatively expensive. |
|
| If biotechnological researchers succeed in engineering cotton whose seeds lack the poison, cottonseed oil could be made more cheaply and sales, therefore, would greatly expand. |
|
"The argument starts with background about cotton oil production, identifies poison removal as the key cost driver making the oil expensive, then concludes that eliminating this poison through biotechnology would reduce costs and dramatically boost sales."
"If scientists can engineer cotton seeds without poison, cottonseed oil sales would greatly expand because the oil could be made more cheaply."
"The logic follows: High costs come from poison removal → Remove poison = lower costs → Lower costs = expanded sales. The argument assumes that price is the main barrier to increased cottonseed oil sales."
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that poison-free cotton seeds would lead to cheaper cottonseed oil and greatly expanded sales
The conclusion makes specific claims about causation (cheaper production leads to expanded sales) and magnitude (sales would 'greatly' expand). The argument assumes cost reduction automatically translates to market success
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that break the connection between cheaper production costs and expanded sales. We can attack either the assumption that removing poison costs will make the oil significantly cheaper, or that cheaper oil will automatically lead to greatly expanded sales. We should look for alternative barriers to sales expansion or reasons why cost reduction might not matter much
This choice tells us that cottonseeds can feed livestock after poison removal, which is just additional information about another use for cotton seeds. This doesn't weaken the argument about oil production and sales expansion. If anything, it might support that there are multiple benefits to cotton seeds, but it doesn't create any problem with the conclusion that poison-free seeds would lead to cheaper oil and expanded sales.
Stating that there's no commercial use for the poison doesn't weaken the argument at all. The argument never claimed the poison had commercial value - it only said removing it was expensive. Whether or not the poison has commercial uses doesn't affect the logic that eliminating poison removal costs would make the oil cheaper and increase sales.
This choice actually supports the argument rather than weakening it. If researchers believe they can create poison-free cotton without affecting fiber quality, this removes a potential obstacle to the proposed solution. The argument would be stronger, not weaker, if both the oil and fiber production could be maintained while eliminating poison removal costs.
This choice significantly weakens the argument by revealing that the poison serves an important protective function. If the poison protects cotton seeds from bird pests that seriously damage other crops, then removing it could create major agricultural problems. Cotton farmers might face substantial crop losses, making poison-free cotton potentially unviable despite oil production cost savings. This introduces a compelling reason why the proposed biotechnology solution might not succeed as predicted.
This choice doesn't weaken the argument because it only confirms that current poison removal techniques have reached their cost limit. This actually supports the need for the biotechnological solution proposed in the argument. If traditional methods can't reduce costs further, then the genetic engineering approach becomes more attractive, not less viable.