Q1 - Planting peach trees on

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Makes more sense for J's to plant peaches than to plant apricots.
Evidence: They're both popular, but peach trees are cheaper to buy and begin bearing fruit at a younger age.

Answer Anticipation:
Any time an author is presenting a head-to-head decision and listing pro's and con's, we're need to evaluate it by pursuing a Full Balance Sheet: all the advantages and disadvantages, and a way to rank which of those are our bigger priorities. We won't get ALL of that in any one answer choice, but any correct answer choice is taking us closer to that.

Here, since we've already heard to advantages about peach trees, we would need to weaken the argument by hearing about a disadvantage with peach trees (or an advantage with apricot trees).

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! Advantage: apricots. They bring in more money per piece.

(B) Strengthens. Disadvantage: apricots. They don't last as long.

(C) Strengthens. Equalizes: apricots and peaches. Same maintenance costs.

(D) Not a clear advantage/disadvantage because this answer choice isn't comparative. Thus, we have no idea if this also applies to peaches. (It likely DOES also apply to peaches, since the awareness of "eating fresh fruit" has increased)

(E) Not a clear adv/disadv because this isn't comparative. But as is, it's strengthening. It's a reason to grow peaches. Low supply means that growing peaches could fill an important consumer need.

Takeaway/Pattern: (D) would end up being the most tempting trap answer, because it is the other thing that says something positive about apricots. In general (not 100% of the time, but 80% of the time), if the conclusion is a comparative idea "X is better than Y", then correct Strengthen/Weaken answers will be comparative too.

#officialexplanation

[sumukh09]

Is the problem with D that the same could also apply for peaches? Awareness of eating fresh "fruit" has increased so the market for peaches could have also grown in recent years?

Also could D be classified as a premise booster since the stimulus says that apricots are very popular in this area?

[fmuirhea]

(D) fails to address both sides of the comparison. As you noted, it's perfectly reasonable to think that the market for peaches has also grown, as they certainly fall under the umbrella of "fruit." Essentially, there's nothing firm enough in (D) to say that the peach market hasn't grown, so we can't really count the growing apricot market as a advantage, because it could easily apply to both items in question.

If trying to decide between two or more options, I like to keep a running tally of the factors being compared to see who's ahead and to look out for potential gaps. This argument discusses a few dimension before making its conclusion that the Johnsons should plant peach tress rather than apricot trees: popularity, initial cost of trees and planting, and fruit bearing.

popularity
- tie

initial cost of trees and planting
- advantage peaches

fruit bearing
- advantage peaches

So, in terms of the factors discussed in the passage, we have a pretty good case for peaches, as they're up 2-0. You must always remember, however, that there are probably several other important factors to keep in mind when deciding between two options; do not assume that they passage has exhausted the discussion. Look in the answer choices for other dimensions that would be relevant to making a decision.

When looking to strengthen or weaken an argument based on comparison, the most important thing is that the credited response must clearly mention both items*, so that you can definitively chalk up a point for either one of them. This is why (D) isn't the best response, because we can't rule out an increase in the peach market. Similarly, (E) leaves the door open for a decrease in apricot production, so it, too, is not the answer we're looking for.

(A), (B), and (C) all discuss both peaches and apricots. If we want to weaken the conclusion that the Johnsons should choose peaches over apricots, we need an answer that gives apricots an advantage. Let's take a look:

(A) price charged
- advantage apricots (aha! peach trees may be cheaper to buy, but what if you don't make much profit from selling them? the price charged for the fruit is certainly another reasonable consideration to bring to bear on the argument)

(B) productivity
- advantage peaches (a classic strengthen trap on a weaken question)

(C) fertilizer cost
- tie

I hope this helps!




*Unless one of the factors mentioned in the passage leaves one half of the comparison unaccounted for. In that case, you can strengthen/weaken by filling in this gap. See PT12.S1.Q15 (Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism) for an example of what I mean.

[sumukh09]

Holy crap "” amazing explanation, thank you!

[shirley.li_]

I understand how (A) weakens the argument, but can someone please explain why (E) is wrong?

[ttunden]

I understand how (A) weakens the argument, but can someone please explain why (E) is wrong?

well in addition to the above user who said E still leaves it open to apricots decreasing production, I think that E was too ambiguous. i was down to A and E. E is ambiguous because it just says peach production has decreased in the past. You have to make too many leaps in logic to have E weaken.

If it said something like the peach tree produces a significantly lower yield than apricot tree then this could perhaps weaken. That was my prephase so that's why I was deciding between A and E. E was just too ambiguous for me because it has too many holes. Wasn't sure if it was referring to peach trees, or something the farmers were doing, and it was just mentioning the past, nothing about current or future.

With the above concerns, it is enough to eliminate E and safely pick A.

[jewels0602]

I was stuck between A and D and picked the wrong one. However, I'm still having a hard time getting the logic behind this question to click.

The stim lays out the following:
Makes more sense to plant peaches than apricots-- why?
individual peach tress cost less to purchase
peach trees also begin to bear fruit at a much earlier age.

We are asked to weaken it.

I didn't chose A because even if apricots sell at a much higher rate, we know that apricot tress are more expensive than peaches so that cost of tree purchase could just be redeemed with the higher prices without necessarily seeing a profit.

Also, peaches bear fruit at a younger age, so even if apricots sold at a higher price, you can potentially have more peaches in general to sell so quantity of sale could beat the individual pricing of apricots.

Moreover, I decided to go with D because it didn't cross my mind that market for peaches could've been expanded as well, but more because I figured expanded market means they are more in demand so for sure the apricots will sell (greater chance of assured profit).

As I was writing this out, I think I started to get a feel for why A might be right-- is it because the chance that peaches could have expanded market leaves too big of a gap to seriously weaken the argument?

[kyuya]

Got this one right, but was a bit unsure about it during timed test.

Conclusion:

- planting peach trees is better


Why?

- both popular (so far they are on even ground)
- but peach trees cost less, and cost less to plant, and also bear fruit earlier

Ah. So the second premise I outlined above explains why Peaches > Apricots right now. So we either need make peaches seem much less appealing, or find some type of benefit to apricots that may make this argument toward liking the cheapness of peaches seem a bit more unreliable.

I will try to walk through my thought process at the time of this PT.

(A) Initially, I just left this. Looked good though.

(B) This actually strengthens the argument. If apricot trees stop being productive earlier than peach trees, that means you get less apricots right? Therefore, less things to sell and presumably less money. Makes the argument toward selecting peaches seem better.

(C) This does nothing. If we take this, in conjunction with the two premises outlined above under the section "Why", what changes? All that we are left with then, is :

(1) they are both popular (so they are even)
(2) peach trees are cheaper (this gives the edge to peaches
(3) they cost the same to fertilize and water (this leaves them even)

So if we do the "math" from the above 1-3, the scale is still tipped in favour of peaches.

(D) Ah here is where I thought "uh oh". I left it and went to see what (E) had to say..

(E) Again, I was thinking hmm.. (A) , (D) and (E) look somewhat attractive. Upon digging deeper though,

(D) Knowing that the market has grown for apricots doesn't really tell us about relative to what. It is entirely possible for the market for apricots to grow, while staying a less ideal fruit than peaches.

Furthermore, this benefit could be conferred upon peaches too!

(E) similar assumption needed to rationalize (D). Peach production decreasing dramatically doesn't mean that the production has fallen below apricots. In fact, peaches could stay be ahead by a mile. The assumption that this would mean apricots production is better is unwarranted and makes this wrong.

As for the right answer...

(A) directly weakens the argument. Remember, the argument is that the price to essentially make peaches is cheaper, so they are better. But if apricots sell for much more, they could end up being more cost effective in the end. Although this somewhat requires an assumption, the reason it is better than (D) and (E) is because it provides us with some kind of relativity. Meaning Peaches in relation to apricots.

(D) and (E) make claims about apricots and peaches, but what are they compared to? Themselves! So that tells us nothing about the relationship between the two fruits, unlike (A) which makes an explicit connection.