Why (A) and (D) is the answer respectively??
If possible, could you provide another example about what it says?
Thank you
LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- tzyc
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 323
- Joined: May 27th, 2012
- Most Thankful
Q20
Actually I'm not sure about both Q#19 and #20...and what the 2nd paragraph says about frost damage
Why (A) and (D) is the answer respectively??
If possible, could you provide another example about what it says?
Thank you
Why (A) and (D) is the answer respectively??
If possible, could you provide another example about what it says?
Thank you
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
- This post thanked 2 times.
Re: Q20
The answer to 19 is from lines 40-41 (removal of one gene).
As for 20, it's referencing the part of the second paragraph that talks about how PS could be used to fight frost damage. Opponents of using it think it could cause harm, but proponents of using it (line 39) say it's safe because the bacteria is only altered by one (bad) gene that's removed.
(D) weakens the proponents' argument by saying: what if this one gene isn't just bad but also, at the same time, does good things? What if it prevents other harm from happening? If that were true, then even though it's only one gene being removed, it could make the altered PS dangerous.
(A) is irrelevant--we don't know how this would affect PS's safety.
(B) seems like it might weaken but doesn't because it's just about the altered bacteria being DERIVED from a potentially damaging strain, not that it itself is damaging.
(C) and (E) are like (A)--we don't know how these would affect safety or not.
As for 20, it's referencing the part of the second paragraph that talks about how PS could be used to fight frost damage. Opponents of using it think it could cause harm, but proponents of using it (line 39) say it's safe because the bacteria is only altered by one (bad) gene that's removed.
(D) weakens the proponents' argument by saying: what if this one gene isn't just bad but also, at the same time, does good things? What if it prevents other harm from happening? If that were true, then even though it's only one gene being removed, it could make the altered PS dangerous.
(A) is irrelevant--we don't know how this would affect PS's safety.
(B) seems like it might weaken but doesn't because it's just about the altered bacteria being DERIVED from a potentially damaging strain, not that it itself is damaging.
(C) and (E) are like (A)--we don't know how these would affect safety or not.
-
- tzyc
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 323
- Joined: May 27th, 2012
- Most Thankful
Re: Q20
Hi, I'm reviewing this question, and...still not sure why D is the answer
I chose B at first and I understand why B is wrong by your explanation but D...
If it prevents other harms as well, isn't it a good thing??
(So it can prevent more harms...and strengthen the argument rather than weaken)
Thank you
I chose B at first and I understand why B is wrong by your explanation but D...
maryadkins Wrote:(D) weakens the proponents' argument by saying: what if this one gene isn't just bad but also, at the same time, does good things? What if it prevents other harm from happening? If that were true, then even though it's only one gene being removed, it could make the altered PS dangerous.
If it prevents other harms as well, isn't it a good thing??
(So it can prevent more harms...and strengthen the argument rather than weaken)
Thank you
-
- brian.howton
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 26th, 2014
Re: Q20
Hi @tz_strawberry,
The trick here is seeing that the proponents are trying to downplay their meddling: the procedure alters only one gene, 'thereby rendering it safer than the phytopathogen from which it was derived' (Lines 44-45). In other words, they're claiming it has one effect and one only, namely reducing frost damage. If, as (D) suggests, a gene's effects are often manifold, it would be reasonable to suspect that the proponents of this method are arguing from naiveté. Therefore, their position must be reexamined and the possible benefits of preserving this perhaps helpful gene would have to be included in the analysis.
The trick here is seeing that the proponents are trying to downplay their meddling: the procedure alters only one gene, 'thereby rendering it safer than the phytopathogen from which it was derived' (Lines 44-45). In other words, they're claiming it has one effect and one only, namely reducing frost damage. If, as (D) suggests, a gene's effects are often manifold, it would be reasonable to suspect that the proponents of this method are arguing from naiveté. Therefore, their position must be reexamined and the possible benefits of preserving this perhaps helpful gene would have to be included in the analysis.
4 posts Page 1 of 1