The use of a certain type of pesticide that was ordinarily sprayed on many apple orchards has been banned by...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

EASY

...

Notes

Post a Query

The use of a certain type of pesticide that was ordinarily sprayed on many apple orchards has been banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of its long-term health risks. During recent testing of newly canned apple sauces, several samples showed traces of the banned pesticide. Therefore, some farmers must still be using the banned pesticide on their apple orchards.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

Most farmers did not object to the ban and switched to a safer pesticide that was recommended by the EPA.

To keep it fresh, most applesauce contains some preservatives, many of which have been investigated for safety by the EPA.

Residues of the pesticide linger in the soil from past spraying, are absorbed into the trees' roots, and are deposited in the fruit, even if no spraying was recently done.

Many consumers prefer the taste of organically grown fruits, which are not sprayed with any pesticides, and avoid buying fruits sprayed with any type of pesticide.

The type of pesticide used to spray apple orchards varies from region to region in the United States.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The use of a certain type of pesticide that was ordinarily sprayed on many apple orchards has been banned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of its long-term health risks.	What it says: The EPA banned a commonly used apple orchard pesticide due to health concerns What it does: Sets up the background context about a pesticide ban What it is: Factual background information Visualization: Before: 25-30 apple orchards using pesticide → After ban: 0 orchards legally allowed to use it
During recent testing of newly canned apple sauces, several samples showed traces of the banned pesticide.	What it says: Tests found the banned pesticide in some new apple sauce samples What it does: Introduces surprising evidence that contradicts what we'd expect after the ban What it is: Test results/evidence Visualization: Recent apple sauce testing: 10 samples tested → 3-4 samples show banned pesticide traces
Therefore, some farmers must still be using the banned pesticide on their apple orchards.	What it says: The author concludes that farmers are still illegally using the banned pesticide What it does: Draws a conclusion that explains the test results by connecting them to ongoing illegal use What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with background context about a pesticide ban, then presents surprising test results that seem to contradict the ban's effectiveness, and finally draws a conclusion to explain these unexpected findings.

Main Conclusion:

Some farmers must still be using the banned pesticide on their apple orchards.

Logical Structure:

The author uses the presence of banned pesticide traces in new apple sauce as evidence to conclude that farmers are still illegally using the pesticide. The logic assumes that if the pesticide appears in new products, it must be because farmers are still applying it to their crops.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that farmers are still illegally using the banned pesticide

Precision of Claims

The conclusion makes a specific causal claim: pesticide traces in apple sauce must mean farmers are currently using banned pesticide. We need to attack this direct cause-effect relationship

Strategy

Look for alternative explanations for why banned pesticide traces appear in apple sauce that don't require farmers to be currently using it. Think about timing issues, storage problems, or other sources of contamination that could explain the test results without proving ongoing illegal use

Answer Choices Explained

Most farmers did not object to the ban and switched to a safer pesticide that was recommended by the EPA.

This tells us most farmers switched to safer alternatives and didn't object to the ban. However, this doesn't weaken the conclusion because the argument only claims that 'some farmers' are still using the banned pesticide. Even if most farmers switched, some could still be using it illegally, which would explain the test results.

To keep it fresh, most applesauce contains some preservatives, many of which have been investigated for safety by the EPA.

This discusses preservatives in applesauce and EPA safety investigations of those preservatives. This is completely irrelevant to our argument about banned pesticide traces found in the apple sauce. The preservatives are different chemicals entirely and don't explain why banned pesticide traces would appear.

Residues of the pesticide linger in the soil from past spraying, are absorbed into the trees' roots, and are deposited in the fruit, even if no spraying was recently done.

This provides a powerful alternative explanation for the pesticide traces. If pesticide residues linger in soil from past legal spraying and get absorbed through tree roots into new fruit, then we can explain the test results without concluding that farmers are currently using the banned pesticide. This directly undermines the causal link the author assumes between finding pesticide traces and ongoing illegal use.

Many consumers prefer the taste of organically grown fruits, which are not sprayed with any pesticides, and avoid buying fruits sprayed with any type of pesticide.

This talks about consumer preferences for organic fruits and their buying habits. While interesting, this doesn't address why banned pesticide traces were found in the tested apple sauce samples. Consumer preferences don't explain the test results or weaken the conclusion about some farmers still using banned pesticides.

The type of pesticide used to spray apple orchards varies from region to region in the United States.

This mentions that pesticide types vary by region but doesn't address the specific issue of banned pesticide traces appearing in apple sauce. Regional variation in pesticide use doesn't explain why a banned pesticide would show up in new products or provide an alternative to the conclusion that farmers are still using it illegally.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...