Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaWeakening Arguments

Agricultural scientists recently developed a genetically modified variety of wheat engineered to produce a natural enzyme that repels the destructive Hessian fly. In controlled laboratory trials, crops of this modified wheat suffered 90 percent less damage from Hessian flies than conventional wheat crops did. The researchers concluded that replacing conventional wheat with this modified variety across Region X will virtually eliminate wheat crop losses caused by the Hessian fly.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers' argument?

  1. In the open fields of Region X, soil temperatures during the Hessian fly's peak feeding season inhibit the modified wheat from expressing the repelling enzyme.Cevap
  2. B
    Farmers in Region X who participated in preliminary trial surveys expressed high interest in adopting pest-resistant crop strains to reduce chemical pesticide costs.
  3. C
    Hessian flies in Region X also feed on barley crops, which are frequently grown in crop rotation with wheat.
  4. D
    Synthesizing the repelling enzyme in isolation requires complex laboratory procedures involving expensive chemical catalysts.
  5. E
    Historically, wheat crop yields in Region X have fluctuated far more due to annual rainfall variation than due to insect infestation levels.

Cevap

The argument is most seriously weakened by the statement that soil temperatures in Region X's open fields inhibit the modified wheat from expressing the repelling enzyme during peak fly feeding season.
The conclusion relies on generalizing findings from controlled laboratory trials to open fields in Region X. The correct choice demonstrates that real-world environmental conditions (soil temperatures during peak feeding season) prevent the modified wheat from expressing the protective enzyme. This directly undermines the claim that the new variety will eliminate Hessian fly damage in Region X.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's premise and conclusion.
Premise: Laboratory trials showed modified wheat suffered 90% less Hessian fly damage due to an enzyme it produces. Conclusion: Replacing conventional wheat with modified wheat in Region X will virtually eliminate Hessian fly wheat losses.
Understanding the precise gap between laboratory results and real-world implementation is crucial to identifying a weak point.
2
Evaluate the underlying assumption.
The argument assumes that conditions in Region X's open fields will allow the modified wheat to produce the enzyme just as effectively as in controlled laboratory conditions.
A valid weakening statement will undermine this crucial connection between lab trials and real-world conditions.
3
Identify the option that breaks this assumption.
The finding that natural soil temperatures in Region X prevent the wheat from expressing the enzyme during peak feeding season demonstrates that the lab success will not occur in the field.
This directly invalidates the conclusion without introducing out-of-scope factors.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Weakening Arguments (Lab vs. Real-World Application Gap)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Weakening Arguments

Bu konudan daha fazla soru