Letter to the editor: Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Boldface

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Letter to the editor:

Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does. However, since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food. Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates. Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

Which of the following most accurately describes the roles played by the portions in boldface in the reasoning of the letter to the editor?

The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.

The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.

The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.

The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.

The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.

Solution

Understanding the Passage

Text from Passage	Analysis
(Boldface 1) "Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does."	What it says: Organic farming is cleaner for the environment - it doesn't pollute soil and water with harmful chemicals like regular farming methods do. Visualization: Conventional farms: soil + water contaminated with pesticides → Organic farms: clean soil + clean water with no chemical pollution What it does: This establishes a positive environmental benefit of organic farming that the author acknowledges. Source: Author's acknowledgment of organic farming advocates' view
"However,"	What it says: This signals a contrast or opposing point is coming. What it does: This transition word indicates the author is about to present information that challenges or complicates the positive view just stated. Source: Author's transition
(Boldface 2) "since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food."	What it says: Organic farming produces much less food per acre - only 50% of what conventional farming produces - so you need twice as much land to grow the same amount of food. Visualization: Conventional farming: 1000 acres → 2000 tons of food vs Organic farming: 2000 acres → 2000 tons of food (same output but double the land needed) What it does: This presents a significant drawback of organic farming that will be used to challenge its environmental benefits. Source: Author's factual claim
"Experts estimate that modern high-yield farming has saved 1.5 million square miles of wildlife habitat, and that if the world switched to organic farming, an additional 10 million square miles of forest would be needed to match current production rates."	What it says: Scientific experts have calculated that efficient modern farming has preserved wildlife areas, but switching to organic farming globally would require destroying 10 million square miles of forest to grow enough food. Visualization: Current system: 1.5 million square miles of habitat preserved vs Organic switch: 10 million square miles of forest destroyed for farmland What it does: This provides expert evidence to support the land-use concern raised in boldface 2, showing the massive environmental cost of organic farming's lower productivity. Source: Expert estimates cited by author
"Therefore, organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment."	What it says: Based on the land-use problems, we can't automatically assume organic farming is more environmentally friendly overall. Visualization: Environmental trade-off: Clean soil/water (organic benefit) vs 10 million square miles of destroyed forest (organic cost) → Unclear which is better What it does: This is the author's main conclusion that challenges the common assumption about organic farming being better for the environment. Source: Author's conclusion

Overall Structure

The author presents a counterargument against the common belief that organic farming is environmentally superior. The author acknowledges organic farming's pollution benefits but argues that its land-use requirements may make it worse for the environment overall.

Main Conclusion: Organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment.

Boldface Segments

Boldface 1: Organic farming does not contaminate soil and groundwater with pesticides and chemicals as conventional farming does.
Boldface 2: since organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming, it requires far more land to produce the same amount of food.

Boldface Understanding

Boldface 1:

Function: Acknowledges the primary environmental benefit that organic farming advocates claim
Direction: Opposite direction - this supports the view that organic farming is better for the environment, which the author ultimately argues against

Boldface 2:

Function: Provides the key factual basis for the author's counterargument against organic farming
Direction: Same direction - this supports the author's conclusion that organic farming may not be environmentally superior

Structural Classification

Boldface 1:

Structural Role: Counterevidence or opposing view that the author acknowledges before refuting
Predicted Answer Patterns: "acknowledges a benefit of organic farming" or "presents a view the author challenges"

Boldface 2:

Structural Role: Primary evidence supporting the author's main argument
Predicted Answer Patterns: "provides support for the author's conclusion" or "offers evidence for the author's position"

Answer Choices Explained

The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes; the second is a premise in the argument.

'The first makes a concession to the view that the argument opposes' - ✓ CORRECT - The author acknowledges organic farming's benefit of not contaminating soil and water, which supports the pro-organic view that the author ultimately argues against
'the second is a premise in the argument' - ✓ CORRECT - The productivity facts about organic farming requiring more land directly support the author's conclusion about organic farming not being necessarily better for the environment

The first identifes a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends; the second identifies a potential drawback.

'The first identifies a benefit of a course of action that the argument recommends' - ✗ WRONG - The argument doesn't recommend organic farming; it argues against its supposed superiority
'the second identifies a potential drawback' - ✓ CORRECT - The productivity issue is indeed a drawback of organic farming

The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish; the second presents a potential challenge to that position.

'The first presents the position the argument seeks to establish' - ✗ WRONG - The first boldface supports organic farming, but the argument seeks to establish that organic farming isn't necessarily better
'the second presents a potential challenge to that position' - ✗ WRONG - The second boldface supports the author's position rather than challenging it

The first presents an argument in support of a position; the second identifies an assumption underlying that position.

'The first presents an argument in support of a position' - ✗ WRONG - While true that it supports the pro-organic position, it's not the author's position but rather a concession
'the second identifies an assumption underlying that position' - ✗ WRONG - The productivity facts are not assumptions but stated facts used as evidence

The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes; the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion.

'The first reports a conclusion of an argument that the letter writer opposes' - ✗ WRONG - It's not a conclusion but rather a factual claim about organic farming's benefits
'the second presents new evidence that seems to contradict that conclusion' - ✗ WRONG - The second doesn't contradict the first; both can be true simultaneously (organic farming can be cleaner and less productive)

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...