Several agricultural cooperatives in the Pacific Northwest recently introduced microalgae-based soil conditioners to reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Although skepticism persists regarding the initial processing costs of microalgae, extensive field trials conducted over three consecutive harvest cycles demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels. Therefore, municipal agricultural boards should subsidize microalgae conditioning for smallholder farms to ensure long-term soil health.
Which of the following statements functions as the primary evidence supporting the author's main recommendation?
- ASeveral agricultural cooperatives in the Pacific Northwest introduced microalgae-based soil conditioners.
- BInitial processing costs for microalgae-based conditioners remain a source of ongoing skepticism.
- Field trials over three consecutive harvests demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels.Cevap
- DMunicipal agricultural boards should subsidize microalgae conditioning for smallholder farms.
- ESubsidizing microalgae conditioning will permanently guarantee the financial viability of smallholder farms.
Cevap
The statement detailing the field trials that demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels functions as the primary premise supporting the recommendation.
The claim regarding the field trials provides the specific empirical data (a 22 percent increase in nitrogen retention) used to justify why municipal boards should provide subsidies for microalgae conditioning. Thus, it serves directly as the argument's primary supporting premise.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying Premises and Evidence