Q10 - because the leaves

[cvfh17]

why is E better than D??

[sumukh09]

Well we know that Jennifer agrees with Peter's conclusion that farmer's should water crops just enough to ensure that there is no substantial threat to either the growth or yield of crops. Jennifer agrees with with Peter's conclusion although she arrives at that conclusion differently than Peter does - she offers other reasons for accepting Peter's conclusion.

D says Jennifer is undermining Peter's conclusion but we know she isn't in fact doing that, so we can eliminate D just by that alone.

[bixbee]

I really struggled with this one because I couldn't decide between (A) and (E)-they were both appealing answers to me. I ended up wrongly picking (A), and this was my reasoning:

Peter's argument makes two 2 claims: an intermediate conclusion (insects prefer to feed on leaves of abundantly watered plants, supported by the premise that leaves of drought-stressed plants are tougher in texture) and the main conclusion (that farmers should water crops only just enough to avoid seriously threatening their health).

Jennifer's premise, that a mildly drought-stressed plant produces pesticidal toxins but abundantly watered plants do not, seems to be able to support BOTH claims in Peter's argument (1, that insects prefer to feed on leaves of abundantly watered plants, and 2, farmers should water their crops only just enough), which is why I picked (A).

I can see why (E) is right, but I can't really see why (A) is wrong. Can anyone help me figure out what I'm missing on this one?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's a very good case you've made for (A). I'm starting to get confused myself. I think you're interpreting "claims" to mean "conclusion, not premises", whereas technically we can call all three of Peter's statements claims.

A conclusion is "a supported claim", but a premise can still be called a claim. So the test-writers could disqualify (A) by saying that Jennifer's comment does nothing to support Peter's first claim, that "the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants are tougher than those of abundantly watered plants".

Naturally, in order to believe that Jennifer's comment supports Peter's claim that "insects prefer abundantly watered leaves", we have to assume that the presence of pesticidal toxins would be something insects could detect and develop a preference/aversion to. (but this seems like a pretty reasonable assumption)

So methinks that (A) is off because Jennifer's comment doesn't relate to the first claim about tougher texture.

[foralexpark]

I really struggled with this one because I couldn't decide between (A) and (E)-they were both appealing answers to me. I ended up wrongly picking (A), and this was my reasoning:

Peter's argument makes two 2 claims: an intermediate conclusion (insects prefer to feed on leaves of abundantly watered plants, supported by the premise that leaves of drought-stressed plants are tougher in texture) and the main conclusion (that farmers should water crops only just enough to avoid seriously threatening their health).

Jennifer's premise, that a mildly drought-stressed plant produces pesticidal toxins but abundantly watered plants do not, seems to be able to support BOTH claims in Peter's argument (1, that insects prefer to feed on leaves of abundantly watered plants, and 2, farmers should water their crops only just enough), which is why I picked (A).

I can see why (E) is right, but I can't really see why (A) is wrong. Can anyone help me figure out what I'm missing on this one?

I don't think the intermediate conclusion (insects prefer to feed on the leaves of...) is not a conclusion, but a fact/premise.
it just says Insects prefer x to y

so (a) is off because Peter only makes one claim, which comes after "Therefore..."

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Yeah I don't see (A) being remotely attractive. (A) says that Jennifer offers information that supports each of Peter's points. But she doesn't say anything about insects, whereas Peter does, so it's wrong right there!

-t

[AnnT606]

Hey Guys,

Yeah I don't see (A) being remotely attractive. (A) says that Jennifer offers information that supports each of Peter's points. But she doesn't say anything about insects, whereas Peter does, so it's wrong right there!

-t

Actually she does say something about the insects. Peter says that "insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants." Jennifer says that a "mildly drought resistant plant will divert a small amount of its resources…to the development of pesticidal toxins."

I debated between A and E and this is precisely the reason I eliminated E. She is not offering "independent grounds" for the conclusion. The insect problem and the pesticide (definition: insect killer) solution are a common ground. How is that independent???

[Misti Duvall]

Hey Guys,

Yeah I don't see (A) being remotely attractive. (A) says that Jennifer offers information that supports each of Peter's points. But she doesn't say anything about insects, whereas Peter does, so it's wrong right there!

-t

Actually she does say something about the insects. Peter says that "insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants." Jennifer says that a "mildly drought resistant plant will divert a small amount of its resources…to the development of pesticidal toxins."

I debated between A and E and this is precisely the reason I eliminated E. She is not offering "independent grounds" for the conclusion. The insect problem and the pesticide (definition: insect killer) solution are a common ground. How is that independent???

I agree the lack of the term "insects" in Jennifer's response is not the greatest reason for eliminating (A). But Jennifer does provide new grounds for the conclusion, because she's talking about what the plants do (develop toxins) v what the insects prefer to eat (abundantly watered plants). So even if you think "independent" is a bit strong, (E) is still better than (A) because it includes Jennifer's new grounds and (A) just talks about supporting Peter's claims (and see Patrick's response above for a discussion of the claims angle).

Hope this helps.