In parts of South America

[sdgirl]

In parts of South America, vitamin-A deficiency is a serious health problem, especially among children. In one region, agriculturists hope to improve nutrition by encouraging farmers to plant a new variety of sweet potato called SPK004 that is rich in betacarotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The plan has good chances of success, since sweet potato is a staple of the region's diet and agriculture, and the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene.

which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?

a. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.
b. The flesh of SPK004 differs from that of the currently cultivated sweet potatoes in colors and textures, so traditional foods would look somewhat different when prepared from SPK004.
c. For successful cultivation of SPK004, a soil significantly richer in nitrogen is needed than is needed for the varieties of sweet potato currently cultivated in the region.
d. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.
e. the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato contain no important nutrients that SPK004 lacks.

OA: E

i was debating between D and E, and ultimately chose D. I think they both equally support the prediction that the plan will succeed. so why is that E is better?

[RonPurewal]

In parts of South America, vitamin-A deficiency is a serious health problem, especially among children. In one region, agriculturists hope to improve nutrition by encouraging farmers to plant a new variety of sweet potato called SPK004 that is rich in betacarotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The plan has good chances of success, since sweet potato is a staple of the region's diet and agriculture, and the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene.

which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?

a. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.
b. The flesh of SPK004 differs from that of the currently cultivated sweet potatoes in colors and textures, so traditional foods would look somewhat different when prepared from SPK004.
c. For successful cultivation of SPK004, a soil significantly richer in nitrogen is needed than is needed for the varieties of sweet potato currently cultivated in the region.
d. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.
e. the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato contain no important nutrients that SPK004 lacks.

OA: E

i was debating between D and E, and ultimately chose D. I think they both equally support the prediction that the plan will succeed. so why is that E is better?

ok, first of all, make sure that you understand why (e) does strengthen the argument.

remember that one extremely common way to strengthen arguments is to undermine possible objections to those arguments. in this case, especially given the extant differences between the potatoes (one contains b-carotene and the other doesn't), it's quite reasonable to raise the following objection: "but what about other nutrients? if spk004 has b-carotene but other potatoes don't, then might other potatoes have some other nutrient that's lacking in spk004?"
legitimate objection.
(e) dispenses with this objection, so it strengthens the argument.

--

(d), on the other hand, is irrelevant. the argument is concerned only with showing that the plan will succeed, NOT with showing that the plan is optimal or better than other plans.

this is extremely important. make sure you realize this: unless an argument specifically compares a course of action to other courses of action, and/or states that a course of action is best/worst/optimal/etc., then other courses of action are irrelevant.

--

analogy:

let's say my argument's conclusion is "diet X will help you lose weight."
if i have an answer choice that says that diet Y will help you lose weight faster than will diet X, that's totally irrelevant. it does not weaken the claim that diet X will help you lose weight.

on the other hand, if my argument's conculsion is "diet X is the best diet for weight loss", then, all of a sudden, any such claim about diet Y will indeed weaken the argument.

see the difference?

[sdgirl]

thanks!!

your explanations make these problems seem so trivial.

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[sudaif]

In parts of South America, vitamin-A deficiency is a serious health problem, especially among children. In one region, agriculturists hope to improve nutrition by encouraging farmers to plant a new variety of sweet potato called SPK004 that is rich in betacarotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The plan has good chances of success, since sweet potato is a staple of the region's diet and agriculture, and the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene.

which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?

a. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.
b. The flesh of SPK004 differs from that of the currently cultivated sweet potatoes in colors and textures, so traditional foods would look somewhat different when prepared from SPK004.
c. For successful cultivation of SPK004, a soil significantly richer in nitrogen is needed than is needed for the varieties of sweet potato currently cultivated in the region.
d. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.
e. the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato contain no important nutrients that SPK004 lacks.

OA: E

i was debating between D and E, and ultimately chose D. I think they both equally support the prediction that the plan will succeed. so why is that E is better?

ok, first of all, make sure that you understand why (e) does strengthen the argument.

remember that one extremely common way to strengthen arguments is to undermine possible objections to those arguments. in this case, especially given the extant differences between the potatoes (one contains b-carotene and the other doesn't), it's quite reasonable to raise the following objection: "but what about other nutrients? if spk004 has b-carotene but other potatoes don't, then might other potatoes have some other nutrient that's lacking in spk004?"
legitimate objection.
(e) dispenses with this objection, so it strengthens the argument.

--

(d), on the other hand, is irrelevant. the argument is concerned only with showing that the plan will succeed, NOT with showing that the plan is optimal or better than other plans.

this is extremely important. make sure you realize this: unless an argument specifically compares a course of action to other courses of action, and/or states that a course of action is best/worst/optimal/etc., then other courses of action are irrelevant.

--

analogy:

let's say my argument's conclusion is "diet X will help you lose weight."
if i have an answer choice that says that diet Y will help you lose weight faster than will diet X, that's totally irrelevant. it does not weaken the claim that diet X will help you lose weight.

on the other hand, if my argument's conculsion is "diet X is the best diet for weight loss", then, all of a sudden, any such claim about diet Y will indeed weaken the argument.

see the difference?

Ron - even though I picked E, I wasn't 100% convinced that it was strengthening the argument that "plan will succeed". Here's why. please share your thoughts!!

Conclusion is that: new potato type will improve nutrition by addressing the VITAMIN-A deficiency.

If so, then shouldn't the correct answer be solely focused on INCREASING VITAMIN-A....answer E seems to be supporting the general idea of "improving nutrition" and not specifically "vitamin-A intake".

[rockrock]

i was a bit confused on this one too.... since the argument is concerned with VITAMIN A , then I thought E was not relevant to the argument (i.e. it has the most beta carotene which is the source of vitamin A in discussion"... - hence, D)

[sangeethmani]

The argument says that the farmers want to improve nutrition. Hence if vitamin A was present in the sweet potatoes and other nutritions weren't this doesn't help the argument.

[RonPurewal]

i was a bit confused on this one too.... since the argument is concerned with VITAMIN A , then I thought E was not relevant to the argument (i.e. it has the most beta carotene which is the source of vitamin A in discussion"... - hence, D)

the ultimate conclusion of this argument is simply that the plan will increase overall nutrition. the increase in vitamin A is the vehicle of the particular nutritional improvement in question, but that's a premise, not the conclusion. the conclusion of the argument is simply "nutrition will be improved".

for the conclusion to be true, then, it's obviously important that nutrition not be degraded by other factors.
choice (e) goes a long way toward making sure that will not happen, so it's the correct answer.

[rajanbond]

In parts of South America, vitamin-A deficiency is a serious health problem, especially among children. In one region, agriculturists hope to improve nutrition by encouraging farmers to plant a new variety of sweet potato called SPK004 that is rich in betacarotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. The plan has good chances of success, since sweet potato is a staple of the region's diet and agriculture, and the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene.

which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the prediction that the plan will succeed?

a. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.
Weakens
b. The flesh of SPK004 differs from that of the currently cultivated sweet potatoes in colors and textures, so traditional foods would look somewhat different when prepared from SPK004.
Weakens- This will/may discourage them from changing their growing habits
c. For successful cultivation of SPK004, a soil significantly richer in nitrogen is needed than is needed for the varieties of sweet potato currently cultivated in the region.
Weakens- again discourages adoption of new variety

d. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.
Irrelevant. Out of scope
e. the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato contain no important nutrients that SPK004 lacks
Strengthens/supports- The current variety is not superior to the proposed one in any way

[mschwrtz]

Good. A few points:

I'm not sure that I agree with you that A weakens, but it doesn't strengthen.

If you're taking your account of the argument (conclusion and premises) itself as understood, perhaps because it matches an account further up in the thread, fair enough. Notice, though, that careful attention to the language of the conclusion could mean the difference between right and wrong.

The conclusion in this case is the prediction that the plan will improve nutrition, not merely that it will address vitamin-A deficiency. If the conclusion were narrowly about vitamin-A deficiency, then E would not work.

[muralik.abm]

Ron,

Can it be said that option "B" is actually weakening the orgument by implying that ppl will not prefer eating the dishes prepared by SPK004 as they look different from those prepared from currently growing potato.

Regards,
Murali.

[RonPurewal]

Can it be said that option "B" is actually weakening the orgument by implying that ppl will not prefer eating the dishes prepared by SPK004 as they look different from those prepared from currently growing potato.

eeeehhh ... that's open to debate. in order to say that this option actually weakens the argument, you need to make the assumption that people will be less willing to eat unfamiliar-looking foods; whether this option is acceptable is questionable.

in any case, this issue is irrelevant in the problem at hand: we definitely know that this statement is "either weaken or nothing", and that's good enough for elimination (because this is a strengthening problem).

[gmatwork]

I have a question regarding (B). Wouldn't the distinction in the appearance of the two types, help people recognize which type are they eating. If appearance is different than kids deficient in Vit A can for sure be fed with the right type of potato without mixing up the two types and thereby leading to desired results. If you see this choice with this perspective, it seems to strengthen.

How do I eliminate B over E?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

I have a question regarding (B). Wouldn't the distinction in the appearance of the two types, help people recognize which type are they eating. If appearance is different than kids deficient in Vit A can for sure be fed with the right type of potato without mixing up the two types and thereby leading to desired results. If you see this choice with this perspective, it seems to strengthen.

How do I eliminate B over E?

Thanks.

yeah, but the problem is that you shouldn't "see this choice with this perspective", because that's, well, not the human perspective.

the wording of the answer choice says:
... traditional foods would look somewhat different ...
note the word "traditional". the point of this answer choice is to strike up associations that humans will readily make, but that a "formal logic computer" can't make. (in fact, that's the entire purpose of the critical reasoning section, but we'll leave that discussion alone for now.)
the association that i'm talking about here is what "traditional" signifies: it's used to describe things that aren't supposed to change. in other words, the majority of people will think it is A Very Bad Idea to change these things, and won't willingly go along with the changes.

the interpretation you are trying to posit here, on the other hand, amounts to "people will readily accept changes to their traditions".
if all you have at your disposal is formal logic, then that might seem as good as the associations above -- but that's just not how the world works.

if this still doesn't make sense, then think about a specific example. let's say that hamburgers can help to stave off cancer if they are infused with a certain chemical -- but, that chemical also turns the hamburger meat green.
between (1) "people would eagerly start eating the green meat, because of the potential health benefits" and (2) "the heck with the potential health benefits, people aren't gonna eat green meat", you have to be thinking in a headspace where #2 is the clear winner. if, in this case, #1 and #2 seem like things that must be considered with equal weight, then the entire way you are thinking about this whole section of the test is not workable.

[aliassad]

I have two questions

Aren't options A and D contradicting each other?

A. There are other vegetables currently grown in the region that contain more beta-carotene than the currently cultivated varieties of sweet potato do.

D. There are no other varieties of sweet potato that are significantly richer in beta-carotene than SPK004 is.


Is it because option A mentions vegetables whereas option D is restricted to potatoes only?


Secondly I think option D just rephrases the information already present in the stem

"the varieties currently grown contain little beta-carotene."

In strengthen questions can we reject an option if it just rephrases the information already provided in the prompt?