Q26 - Farmer: Crops genetically engineered

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
GMOs don't need insecticides. Insecticides have hurt wildlife. Therefore, using more GMOs would likely help wildlife.

Answer Anticipation:
Insecticides definitely hurt wildlife, so cutting their use would definitely help wildlife. However, the argument doesn't conclude that insecticides shouldn't be used; instead, it concludes that GMOs should be used. Since the author doesn't state the impact of GMOs on wildlife, we don't know if they're safe. That's a huge gap in the argument - if GMOs are just as bad for wildlife as insecticide, the argument falls apart.

I'm going into the answer choices looking for anything about the impact of GMOs on wildlife.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Bingo. This answer talks about the impact of GMOs. Negating it - Using GMOs in place of insecticide-sprayed plants won't cause less harm - kills the conclusion.

(B) Degree. This answer choice goes farther than the argument in stating that even a "slight" reduction of insecticides would lead to recovery. Since it goes past the argument, it's not necessary.

(C) Degree. These plants don't need to "never" be sprayed by insecticides. The argument may still work even if GMOS are sprayed once, lightly, with the insecticide, as long as it significantly reduces the amount of insecticide.

(D) Out of scope. The cost doesn't factor into the equation of whether this change would have the desired impact. Something could be effective even if it's too expensive to be feasible.

(E) Scope creep/out of scope. This answer choice mentions ineffective spraying, which isn't a part of the argument. It also tries to bring in causality ("because") in a place that the argument doesn't need causality (it just needs the plan to work, not to work by a specific mechanism).

Takeaway/Pattern:
When a comparison is made, the argument needs to establish the impact of the new situation. It can't simply rely on an old cause going away. Here, the GMOs are a new element that must be understood before removing insecticide can be said to have a specific impact.

#officialexplanation

[judaydaday]

I'm having difficulty understanding why (A) is correct.

Couldn't (C) also be correct? Here's my appoarch for this question.

P1: Crops genetically engineered (GE) do not need to be sprayed w/insecticides.
P2: spraying insecticides harms wildlife
C: using GE more widely is likely to help wildlife populations to recover.

So the anti-conclusion would be: using GE more widely will NOT help wildlife populations to recover.

WHY? The switch to GE will NOT stop the use of insecticides.

So the necessary assumption would be that spraying insecticides WILL be stopped as stated in (C).

Is (C) incorrect because of the word "recover" in the conclusion?

--EDIT--

Actually, I believe "recover" is the key word that the AC (A) hinges upon....

While spraying insecticides can cause harm, so without the insecticides means this type of harm is negated. The only conclusion you can make is that the the wildlife population will be harmed less by insecticides, but to conclude that it will "recover" is to make the assumption that the benefit outweights the harm.

So the anti-conclusion would still be the same:

using GE more widely will NOT help wildlife population to recover

The objection is supported instead by:

the use of GE could be more harmful than the insecticides.

What is the logical process you go through to end up choosing (A)?

[christinachenn]

Hi all,

This is my evaluation of the stem and answer choices. GEC stands for genetically engineered crops. I bolded words that I think are important and that I am expecting incorrect answer choices to exploit.

Premise1: GEC produce toxins & don't need to be sprayed with insecticides.
Premise 2: Excessive spraying of insecticides has harmed wildlife populations near croplands.
Conclusion: Using GEC more widely is likely to help wildlife populations recover.

If you notice, the bolded words are very weak. Because of these weak words, you can boil the argument down to basically saying "A doesn't need B, and we know that B in very large amounts is bad for C, so if we use A more, we can help C." We are assuming that simply because A (GEC) doesn't need B, that we can dispose of B (insecticides) completely. Additionally, the conclusion is weak in saying that we are likely to help. It does not that say the use of more GEC will absolutely recover wildlife completely--it is just likely to help.

Here are the answer choices in a paraphrased form with their negations:

(A)
Paraphrase: If we replace crops with insecticides with GEC, less harm will be done to wildlife.
Negation: If we replace crops with insecticides with GEC, less harm will NOT be done to wildlife.
This should ruin the argument because you know that the conclusion is that if you use more GEC, wildlife will be helped.

(B) If the amount of insecticides sprayed on crops that have been harmed by excessive spraying of insecticides decreases slightly, wildlife that was harmed there will likely recover.
Negation: If the amount of insecticides sprayed on crops that have been harmed by excessive spraying of insecticides decreases slightly, wildlife that was harmed there will not likely recover.
Hmmm... we only know that excessive spraying of insecticides has harmed wildlife near croplands. If the amount decreases slightly (by .0001%), it is consistent with the argument that maybe it's not enough for the wildlife to recover. Remember that the argument recommends using GEC more widely.

(C) GEC are never sprayed with insecticides that harm wildlife populations.
Negation: Some GEC are sprayed with insecticides that harm wildlife populations.
Even if some GEC are sprayed with insecticides and we use them more widely, the amount of insecticides may still be under the "excessive" amount that harmed wildlife.

(D) I immediately crossed this answer off when I saw "costly."

(E) I crossed this answer off when I saw "only because." This answer choice is telling us that if our conclusion is true, it will only be true because its use prevented excessive insecticide spraying. We don't need to assume this is the only reason for our conclusion to be correct.

I welcome a second read on my analysis from an MLSAT instructor--i'm not sure if it's 100% correct but it's helped towards the answer.

[maryadkins]

Great analysis, thank you!

[aharonw1]

I need someone to explain why Answer choice C is wrong, without using negation.

I thought the argument had a gap between "genetically engineered cropped not NEEDING insecticide" and "the reality of the GEC NEVER being sprayed".

Just because something doesn't need something, it doesn't mean it won't still happen...

I thought C was confirming the connection. GEC don't need to be sprayed and therefore are NEVER actually sprayed. That would in turn help wildlife!

[einuoa]

I need someone to explain why Answer choice C is wrong, without using negation.

I thought the argument had a gap between "genetically engineered cropped not NEEDING insecticide" and "the reality of the GEC NEVER being sprayed".

Just because something doesn't need something, it doesn't mean it won't still happen...

I thought C was confirming the connection. GEC don't need to be sprayed and therefore are NEVER actually sprayed. That would in turn help wildlife!

Hi,

I think there is a discrepancy between "do not need to be sprayed" and "never sprayed" but I think even if it does happen and genetically engineered crops are sprayed with insecticides, the conclusion could still hold.

If the crops are sprayed occasionally (during some crazy raining bug storm or something), could the genetically engineered crops still be more likely to help wildlife populations recover? Absolutely, because the conclusion only concerns the EXCESSIVE spraying of these pesticides.

Hope that helps!

[rachel.miklaszewski]

Can someone explain more why B is not the right answer? Wouldn't the negation of B that "wildlife population that have been harmed by excessive spraying on insecticides are not likely to recover if the insecticides sprayed is reduced even slightly" be something that would completely ruin the conclusion of using GECs that GECs will help wildlife populations recover, since even a slight reduction in insecticides won't change chances of recovery?

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
GMOs don't need insecticides. Insecticides have hurt wildlife. Therefore, using
(B) Degree. This answer choice goes farther than the argument in stating that even a "slight" reduction of insecticides would lead to recovery. Since it goes past the argument, it's not necessary.

.

#officialexplanation

Would this also be a valid reason to eliminate "B". B's trigger is when we spray less insecticides. However, the stimulus never said that by planting GMO crops we won't use pesticides ( as wrong Answer Choice C tries to tempt us with). Just because GMOs do not need to be sprayed with insecticides does not mean they won't be sprayed with it as farmers may still spray it for various reasons or simply spray it just for the sake of it.
Hence, because the stimulus never said that by planting GMOs we will eliminate insecticides "B" is not only a potential degree issue but also out of scope?

The interesting thing the argument does is that it never actually tells us the mechanism in which GMO plants would save wildlife , albeit it is somewhat implied it is due to less insecticides (but what if GMO plants are tougher and provide better habitat for wildlife and that's why it is better for wildlife ---> a strengther for the stimulus ). I noticed that "A" does not actually commit the argument to saying the reason why GMO plants are good for the wildlife is because of less insecticide is use; rather, "A" just gives us a blanket summary that overall planting GMOs cause less harm than planting crops that required insecticides without saying it is because of insecrtides, because it provides a better habitat etc. I was reluctant to choose "A" at first because it seemed almost too straightforward for Q26 where it said upfront GMOs cause less harm as I thought this would be some curveball to eliminate some potential reasons why GMO will cause just as much pesticide to be used etc.

[abrenza123]

I understand that A is the correct answer and the negation completely destroys the argument, but Sometimes I get a little turned around with conditional answers to NA questions and applying the negated conditional answer to stimulus - would someone be able to explain how answer B goes "too far?" I understand the concept of an incorrect NA answer choice covering more than is necessary for the argument to hold, but I think I am getting a little turned around by the "reduced even slightly" language

Also, would this be sufficient or would it not be because you still have to assume that if GMO crops were more widely used, spraying w/ insecticides would decrease? Does GMO crops not needing to be sprayed imply that if they were more widely used they wouldn't be sprayed?

[ohthatpatrick]

As you saw me write in another post of yours for this test, the correct answers to Necessary Assumption come in two main forms:

1. Supplying a Missing Link or Missing Trigger-Fact
(we call the former thing "Bridge ideas", as they play connect-the-dots with ideas from the argument. The latter thing is less common, but if we're provided with a conditional but never told the trigger was factually triggered, then sometimes we're just missing that fact)

In either case, the correct answer contains familiar wording, because it's either linking together two ideas from the argument or it's supplying a factual statement that matches the trigger of a conditional in the argument.

2. Ruling out a potential objection
(we call these Defender ideas)


When an answer is conditional, I never bother negating it.
1. most students don't know how to properly negate conditionals, so that can mess them up
2. the sort of weakening effect you get when you negate a conditional is unimpressive (it shows the possibility of the author being wrong), so if you're expecting the negation test to deliver a mic-drop kill shot then you'll feel left wanting.

Instead, when an answer is conditional, I simply ask myself this:
- DID the author make this move?
(be careful about reversals and negations .... and be careful about authors who made a move from idea 1 to idea 2, but did so without complete certainty.

for example,
if I say "Idea 1. Thus, Idea 2 is probably true"
then I wouldn't be able to say the author assumed the conditional that
"If idea 1, then idea 2".

But if the author moves with complete confidence from idea 1 to idea 2, with no hedging of his/her wording, then it's fair to say that the author is assuming the definitive move of a conditional statement.)


The negation of (A) would be saying:
Using GMO crops instead of using insecticide will not necessarily cause less harm to wildlife populations.

i.e. using GMO crops could cause just as much harm to wildlife populations as insecticides do (bad news for conclusion)


If you're looking at is as a conditional,
"If we use GMO crops instead of insecticides, there will be less harm to wildlife populations."

Is the author's argument clearly making that move? Is the author clearly thinking this?
Sure.

Her whole argument is "GMO crops don't require insecticides, which harm wildlife populations." Thus using these crops will help wildlife populations recover.

So she's assuming
"If we use GMO and don't use insecticides, then this will be better for wildlife populations", which is very close in meaning to (A).

The conditional in (B) says
"If we even slightly reduce the amount of insecticides sprayed on crops, wildlife populations will likely recover."

Did the author ever make that move? Was the author clearly thinking that?
No. She never dealt with a scenario in which we use "slightly less insecticide". Her conclusion is about a scenario in which we use GMO crops and don't use any insecticide.

As for (A)'s sufficiency, I honestly have never enjoyed the game of asking whether an NA answer choice is also SA. I guess it's decent for brainstorming, but I'm either using an NA mindset or an SA mindset. They're two separate lenses, so I don't like to muddy the waters by using one of them on the other type of question.

That said, I don't think (A) is sufficient. Even if it causes less harm, I don't think that proves with total certainty it will help wildlife populations recover.

Stabbing someone 40 times does less harm than stabbing them 50 times, but it might still be true that it's a fatal amount of damage either way.

So I don't know that less harm suddenly means "capable of recovery".
Also, GMO crops produce toxins. Those toxins make it so we don't need insecticide, but what if they affect the local ecology in some way that impairs the health of wildlife populations?

Hope this helps.