Tagriole, a herbicide used by many farmers, was recently shown by researchers to be slightly more toxic to individuals who...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

Tagriole, a herbicide used by many farmers, was recently shown by researchers to be slightly more toxic to individuals who accidentally come in contact with it while applying it than any of the alternative herbicides used for similar purposes. The same researchers, however, have concluded that it is generally safer to use Tagriole than to use any of the alternatives.

Which of the following, if it were known by the researchers to be true, would best explain why they arrived at the conclusion mentioned above?

Tagriole requires only one application, whereas each of the alternatives requires frequent reapplications.

The use of Tagriole in combination with its alternatives can injure animals that prey on insects that damage farm crops.

The manufacture of Tagriole involves the release of a very small number of atmospheric pollutants, each of which is very toxic.

Each of the alternatives to Tagriole costs farmers considerably more per acre to apply than does Tagriole.

Herbicides that are dangerous to those who apply them are dangerous to those who live near the fields where they have been applied.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Tagriole, a herbicide used by many farmers, was recently shown by researchers to be slightly more toxic to individuals who accidentally come in contact with it while applying it than any of the alternative herbicides used for similar purposes.	What it says: Research shows Tagriole is more toxic to people who accidentally touch it during application compared to other similar herbicides What it does: Sets up the first piece of evidence about Tagriole's toxicity - establishes a safety concern What it is: Research finding Visualization: Toxicity levels - Tagriole: 6/10, Alternative herbicides: 4/10 (during accidental contact)
The same researchers, however, have concluded that it is generally safer to use Tagriole than to use any of the alternatives.	What it says: Despite being more toxic on contact, the same researchers say Tagriole is overall safer than the alternatives What it does: Creates a puzzling contradiction with the previous finding - builds tension in the argument What it is: Researchers' conclusion Visualization: Overall safety ranking - Tagriole: #1 (safest), Alternatives: #2, #3, etc. (less safe overall)

Argument Flow:

The argument presents what seems like contradictory research findings. First, we learn that Tagriole is more dangerous during accidental contact. Then we're told the same researchers concluded it's actually safer overall. This creates a puzzle that needs explaining.

Main Conclusion:

Researchers concluded that Tagriole is generally safer to use than alternative herbicides, despite being more toxic during accidental contact.

Logical Structure:

This is a paradox structure where two seemingly contradictory facts are presented from the same source. The question asks us to resolve this apparent contradiction by finding what additional information the researchers knew that would explain why higher contact toxicity could coexist with overall better safety.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - We need to explain how Tagriole can be both more toxic on contact AND generally safer overall than alternatives

Precision of Claims

The claims are about relative safety comparisons: Tagriole is 'slightly more toxic' during accidental contact but 'generally safer' overall compared to alternative herbicides

Strategy

For paradox questions, we need to find information that reconciles the apparent contradiction. We're looking for factors that would make Tagriole safer overall despite being more toxic on contact. Think about different dimensions of safety beyond just contact toxicity - like effectiveness, frequency of exposure, environmental impact, or application methods.

Answer Choices Explained

Tagriole requires only one application, whereas each of the alternatives requires frequent reapplications.

This perfectly resolves our paradox! If Tagriole requires only one application while alternatives need frequent reapplications, then even though each contact with Tagriole is slightly more toxic, farmers have far fewer exposures overall. Think about it: one slightly more toxic exposure versus multiple exposures to less toxic alternatives. The total risk would be lower with Tagriole because frequency of exposure matters as much as toxicity per exposure. This explains why researchers concluded Tagriole is generally safer despite higher contact toxicity.

The use of Tagriole in combination with its alternatives can injure animals that prey on insects that damage farm crops.

This talks about using Tagriole in combination with alternatives and effects on animals. But our paradox is specifically about comparing Tagriole alone versus alternatives alone, and the safety concern mentioned in the passage is about humans applying the herbicide, not animals. This doesn't help explain why Tagriole alone would be safer than alternatives alone for human applicators.

The manufacture of Tagriole involves the release of a very small number of atmospheric pollutants, each of which is very toxic.

Manufacturing pollution doesn't resolve our paradox about application safety. The passage specifically discusses toxicity to individuals applying the herbicide, not environmental concerns during manufacturing. Even if Tagriole's manufacturing creates fewer pollutants, this wouldn't explain why it's safer for farmers to apply despite being more toxic on contact.

Each of the alternatives to Tagriole costs farmers considerably more per acre to apply than does Tagriole.

Cost differences don't explain safety differences. Whether Tagriole costs more or less per acre has no bearing on resolving the contradiction between higher contact toxicity and better overall safety. Cost and safety are separate considerations that don't help explain the researchers' seemingly contradictory findings.

Herbicides that are dangerous to those who apply them are dangerous to those who live near the fields where they have been applied.

This actually makes the paradox worse rather than resolving it! If herbicides dangerous to applicators are also dangerous to nearby residents, and Tagriole is more dangerous to applicators, then it should also be more dangerous to residents. This would make Tagriole less safe overall, not more safe, contradicting the researchers' conclusion even further.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...