Loading...
Farmer: Family farmers in developing nations generally own no more than a few acres. Most modern farming technology is too expensive to use on such small areas. Thus, family farmers growing grain crops cannot compete against huge, efficient, and subsidized factory farms. So family farmers should focus instead on growing specialized crops such as ginseng or gourmet mushrooms, which require the use of intense, skilled human labor rather than large-scale technology, since.
Which of the following would, if true, most logically complete the farmer's argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Family farmers in developing nations generally own no more than a few acres. |
|
| Most modern farming technology is too expensive to use on such small areas. |
|
| Thus, family farmers growing grain crops cannot compete against huge, efficient, and subsidized factory farms. |
|
| So family farmers should focus instead on growing specialized crops such as ginseng or gourmet mushrooms, which require the use of intense, skilled human labor rather than large-scale technology, since. |
|
The farmer starts with a basic fact about small farm sizes, then explains why this creates a technology cost problem, uses this to show why small farmers can't compete in grain markets, and finally suggests specialty crops as the solution. The argument is building toward explaining why specialty crops would work better, but cuts off mid-sentence.
Family farmers should focus on growing specialized crops like ginseng or gourmet mushrooms instead of grain crops.
The argument follows a problem-solution structure: Small farms → Can't afford modern technology → Can't compete in grain markets → Therefore should switch to specialty crops that rely on human labor instead of technology. The argument is incomplete since it ends with 'since' and needs a reason why specialty crops would be better for small farmers.
Logically Completes - We need to find a statement that logically finishes the farmer's argument about why family farmers should grow specialized crops instead of grain crops.
The argument makes specific claims about farm size (few acres), technology costs (too expensive for small areas), competitive disadvantage (cannot compete with factory farms), and proposed solution (focus on specialized crops requiring skilled labor rather than technology).
Since the argument cuts off at 'since', we need to find the logical reason why switching to specialized crops that require skilled human labor would be better for small family farmers. The completion should explain why this strategy would work - essentially why small farmers would have an advantage with labor-intensive specialty crops compared to their disadvantage with grain crops.
'growing grain crops does not generally require the use of modern farming technology' - This actually contradicts the farmer's earlier reasoning. The farmer argued that family farmers can't compete in grain crops specifically because factory farms use efficient modern technology. If grain crops don't require modern technology, then the farmer's entire premise about why family farmers are at a disadvantage falls apart. This would weaken rather than complete the argument.
'family farms are better able than factory farms to make effective use of such labor' - This perfectly completes the logical flow. The farmer is explaining why specialty crops requiring skilled human labor would be better for family farmers. If family farms are actually better at utilizing skilled labor than factory farms, then this gives them a competitive advantage in labor-intensive crops - the exact opposite of their disadvantage in technology-intensive grain crops. This creates a logical reason why the strategy would work.
'factory farms may before very long be able to use modern farming technology extensively to grow such crops' - This actually undermines the farmer's recommendation. If factory farms will soon be able to use technology to grow specialty crops too, then switching to specialty crops wouldn't solve the family farmers' competitive problem. This suggests the recommended strategy might not work long-term.
'the vast size of factory farms enables them to afford modern farming technology' - While this might be true, it doesn't explain why family farmers should focus on specialty crops. This just restates why factory farms have an advantage in technology-based farming, but doesn't provide a reason why labor-intensive crops would be better for family farmers specifically.
'there is not a large supply of such labor in some developing countries that grow these crops' - This creates a potential problem with the farmer's recommendation. If there isn't enough skilled labor available, then family farmers might not be able to successfully implement the strategy of growing labor-intensive specialty crops. This weakens rather than supports the argument.