Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardWeaken

Agricultural Economist: A newly engineered wheat strain resists the devastating "rust" fungus. In ideal conditions, this resistant strain yields 10 percent less grain per acre than traditional varieties. Nevertheless, farmers in regions susceptible to rust should transition entirely to the new strain. Adopting this strain completely eliminates the need for chemical fungicides, which currently account for nearly a third of these farmers' annual operating costs. Therefore, by making this transition, these farmers will maximize their average net income over the next decade.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the agricultural economist's argument?

  1. The chemical fungicides conventionally used to prevent rust also provide essential protection against several other yield-destroying pests to which the new wheat strain is highly vulnerable.Answer
  2. B
    During years with heavy rainfall, which promotes severe rust outbreaks, traditional wheat varieties experience yield losses far exceeding 10 percent even when treated with fungicides.
  3. C
    In agricultural regions that are completely unaffected by the rust fungus, farmers who adopted the newly engineered strain reported a substantial decline in their overall net income.
  4. D
    The market price of the chemical fungicides used to combat rust has decreased slightly over the past two years due to global manufacturing innovations.
  5. E
    Consumer advocacy groups frequently launch public campaigns against genetically engineered crops, though historical data shows such campaigns rarely impact wholesale grain market prices.

Answer

The option stating that the chemical fungicides provide essential protection against other yield-destroying pests to which the new strain is vulnerable.
The economist bases the conclusion on a straightforward cost-benefit calculation: saving nearly a third of operating costs will more than make up for a 10 percent drop in ideal yield. The correct answer shatters this calculation by showing that eliminating the fungicide has a massive unintended consequence. Because the fungicide also protects against other pests, and the new wheat is highly vulnerable to them, removing the chemical will result in catastrophic yield losses far beyond 10 percent, effectively preventing the farmers from maximizing their net income.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the argument.
Conclusion: Transitioning to the new wheat strain will maximize farmers' average net income. Premises: The strain yields 10% less in ideal conditions, but it eliminates the need for fungicides that cost 1/3 of operating expenses.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to isolate the core logical gap.
2
Determine the unstated assumption linking the premises to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that eliminating the fungicide is a pure cost-saving measure that will not introduce new, unforeseen costs or severe yield losses beyond the stated 10% baseline.
Identifying the assumption reveals how the argument can be logically attacked.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that attacks this assumption.
The correct option reveals that stopping the fungicide treatments removes protection against other pests, which will ravage the highly vulnerable new strain, thereby destroying the expected financial gains.
A valid weakener must introduce new information that severs the logical link between the proposed action and the expected outcome.

Key Concept

Causal and Conditional Reasoning in Cost-Benefit Analysis
Rate this question

Topics

Weaken

More questions from this topic