Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer vegetable seeds to produce crops that are highly resistant to insect damage....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Evaluate

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer vegetable seeds to produce crops that are highly resistant to insect damage. Although these seeds currently cost more than conventional seeds, their cost is likely to decline. Moreover, farmers planting them can use far less pesticide, and most consumers prefer vegetables grown with less pesticide, therefore, for crops for which these seeds can be developed, their use is likely to become the norm.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument above?

Whether plant scientists have developed insect-resistant seeds for every crop that is currently grown commercially.

Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.

Whether plants grown from the new genetically engineered seeds can be kept completely free of insect damage.

Whether seeds genetically engineered to produce insect-resistant crops generate significantly lower per acre crop yields than do currently used seeds.

Whether most varieties of crops currently grown commercially have greater natural resistance to insect damage than did similar varieties in the past.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Plant scientists have been able to genetically engineer vegetable seeds to produce crops that are highly resistant to insect damage.	What it says: Scientists created special seeds that make crops really hard for insects to damage What it does: Sets up the foundation by introducing the new technology we'll be talking about What it is: Factual statement about scientific capability Visualization: Regular crops: ???????????? → 50% damage vs Engineered crops: ???????????? → 5% damage
Although these seeds currently cost more than conventional seeds, their cost is likely to decline.	What it says: The new seeds are expensive now but will probably get cheaper What it does: Acknowledges a current disadvantage but suggests it's temporary What it is: Author's prediction about cost trends Visualization: Current: Engineered seeds $15 vs Regular seeds $5 Future: Engineered seeds $6-8 vs Regular seeds $5
Moreover, farmers planting them can use far less pesticide, and most consumers prefer vegetables grown with less pesticide	What it says: These seeds let farmers spray way less pesticide, and consumers like vegetables with less pesticide What it does: Adds two major benefits that build on the insect resistance mentioned earlier What it is: Author's claim about practical benefits Visualization: Pesticide use: Regular crops need 10 gallons per acre vs Engineered crops need 2 gallons per acre Consumer preference: 75% prefer low-pesticide vegetables
therefore, for crops for which these seeds can be developed, their use is likely to become the norm.	What it says: So for crops where we can make these special seeds, most farmers will probably start using them What it does: Draws the main conclusion by combining all the previous benefits What it is: Author's final prediction/conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by establishing that engineered seeds exist and work well against insects. It then addresses the main obstacle (high cost) by saying costs will drop. Next, it adds two powerful advantages: less pesticide use and consumer preference for low-pesticide vegetables. Finally, it concludes that these combined factors will make engineered seeds standard practice.

Main Conclusion:

Genetically engineered seeds will likely become the standard choice for farmers (for crops where these seeds can be developed).

Logical Structure:

This is a prediction argument based on weighing costs vs benefits. The author argues that the benefits (insect resistance + less pesticide + consumer preference + eventually lower costs) will outweigh the current disadvantage (higher cost), leading to widespread adoption.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Evaluate - We need to identify information that would help us determine whether the conclusion (that genetically engineered seeds will become the norm) is actually likely to happen

Precision of Claims

The argument makes predictive claims about future adoption patterns ('likely to become the norm'), cost trends ('cost is likely to decline'), and consumer preferences ('most consumers prefer'). These are broad predictions that depend on various market and practical factors

Strategy

For evaluate questions, we need to think of key assumptions the argument makes and create scenarios that, when taken to extremes, would either strongly support or seriously undermine the conclusion. We're looking for information that could swing our confidence in the prediction either way

Answer Choices Explained

Whether plant scientists have developed insect-resistant seeds for every crop that is currently grown commercially.

This doesn't help evaluate the argument because the conclusion already limits itself to 'crops for which these seeds can be developed.' The argument acknowledges this limitation upfront, so knowing the exact scope doesn't change whether the prediction is sound for the applicable crops.

Whether farmers typically use agricultural pesticides in larger amounts than is necessary to prevent crop damage.

This is tangential to the main argument. Even if farmers currently overuse pesticides, the key point is that engineered seeds allow less pesticide use overall, which consumers prefer. The current usage patterns don't affect whether the benefits described would lead to widespread adoption.

Whether plants grown from the new genetically engineered seeds can be kept completely free of insect damage.

The argument only claims the crops are 'highly resistant' to insect damage, not completely immune. Complete immunity would be nice but isn't necessary for the argument's logic to work. Partial resistance that allows reduced pesticide use is sufficient to support the conclusion.

Whether seeds genetically engineered to produce insect-resistant crops generate significantly lower per acre crop yields than do currently used seeds.

This is crucial information! If these seeds produce much lower yields, farmers might not adopt them despite the other benefits, since total crop output directly affects profitability. Conversely, if yields are comparable or better, it strongly supports widespread adoption. This directly tests a key assumption underlying the prediction.

Whether most varieties of crops currently grown commercially have greater natural resistance to insect damage than did similar varieties in the past.

This historical comparison doesn't affect the current decision between conventional seeds and genetically engineered seeds. What matters is the relative performance of today's options, not how either compares to past varieties.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...