Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms.
In evaluating the argument, which of the following would be most useful to establish?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of crop failure, sustained little bollworm damage until this year. |
|
| This year the plantings are being seriously damaged by bollworms. |
|
| Bollworms, however, are not necessarily developing resistance to the cotton's insecticide. |
|
| Bollworms breed on corn, and last year more corn than usual was planted throughout cotton-growing regions. |
|
| So it is likely that the cotton is simply being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by showing us a puzzle: bioengineered cotton that used to work great against bollworms is now failing badly. Instead of accepting the obvious explanation (bollworms got resistant), the author says 'wait, maybe not' and then gives us a different reason. The author points to extra corn plantings last year, which would create more bollworms, and concludes that the cotton is just facing too many bugs rather than bugs that are immune.
Main Conclusion:
The cotton is likely being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms rather than failing due to bollworm resistance to the insecticide.
Logical Structure:
The author uses a 'alternative explanation' structure. We have a problem (cotton failing), reject the obvious cause (resistance), and instead propose a different cause (too many bollworms from extra corn). The logic flows: more corn → more bollworms → cotton gets overwhelmed by sheer numbers, not because the insecticide stopped working.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to find information that would help us test whether the author's conclusion (that cotton is being overwhelmed by corn-bred bollworms) is actually correct or not.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific claims about quantity (more corn planted last year), activity (bollworms breed on corn), and causation (extra corn led to more bollworms overwhelming cotton). We need to evaluate these connections.
Strategy
For evaluate questions, we need to think of key assumptions the argument makes and create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken the conclusion when we get more information. The author concludes that increased corn plantings led to more bollworms that overwhelmed the cotton (rather than the bollworms developing resistance). We should think about what information would help us test this theory versus alternative explanations.
Whether corn could be bioengineered to produce the insecticide. This doesn't help us evaluate the current argument about why cotton is failing this year. The argument is about whether cotton failure is due to resistance or overwhelming numbers - knowing about potential corn bioengineering solutions doesn't tell us which explanation is correct for the current situation.
Whether plantings of cotton that does not produce the insecticide are suffering unusually extensive damage from bollworms this year. This directly tests the argument's core claim. If regular cotton (without insecticide) also shows unusual damage this year, it supports the 'overwhelming numbers' theory since these plants would be affected by increased bollworm populations but not by resistance issues. If regular cotton shows normal damage while only bioengineered cotton shows increased damage, it would suggest resistance is the real problem, contradicting the author's conclusion.
Whether other crops that have been bioengineered to produce their own insecticide successfully resist the pests against which the insecticide was to protect them. This is about other crops and other pests, which doesn't help us evaluate the specific situation with cotton and bollworms. The success or failure of other bioengineered crops doesn't tell us whether cotton's current problem is due to resistance or overwhelming numbers.
Whether plantings of bioengineered cotton are frequently damaged by insect pests other than bollworms. This is irrelevant to evaluating the argument. The argument specifically focuses on bollworm damage and whether it's caused by resistance or overwhelming numbers. Information about other pests doesn't help distinguish between these two explanations for bollworm damage.
Whether there are insecticides that can be used against bollworms that have developed resistance to the insecticide produced by the bioengineered cotton. This assumes resistance has already occurred and focuses on potential solutions rather than helping us evaluate whether resistance is actually the cause of the current problem. It doesn't help us test the argument's claim that the issue is overwhelming numbers rather than resistance.