When uncontrollable factors such as

Answer choices

1. A

   Illegal Reversal5% picked this

   If several of the businesses that sell to farmers do not prosper, it is because farming

   We were told that farming struggles ? other related business will struggle too This answer is trying to reverse that relationship and go from right to left. farm-related businesses ? farming itself are struggling is struggling

   5%
2. B

   Bad Trigger Match19% picked this

   If rainfall is below average, those businesses that profit from farmers’ purchases tend

   We could probably say that when "lack of rain causes wheat crops to fail", that businesses that profit from farmers tend to lose money (bit of an overreach there, but gist-y). However, the trigger on this conditional is that "any time rainfall is below average" these related businesses will tend to lose money. That's way stronger than what we can derive from this paragraph. We don't know if having somewhat less than average rain would trigger all that stuff we talked about, just what a crop failure from lack of rain would result in.

   19%
3. C

   Too Strong: not responsible3% picked this

   Farmers are not responsible for the consequences of a wheat crop’s failing if wheat growth has been affected

   Once again the trigger of this conditional will be more frequently fired than the trigger of the conditional we learned about in the paragraph. There, it was "if lack of rain causes wheat crops to fail", so the chain reactions are only when wheat crops fail. Here, it's "if lack of rain affects wheat growth", which is actually neutral enough that this would be triggered whether a lack of rain helped or hurt wheat growth. We're beyond the zone of what we were told with that trigger. Furthermore, the outcome that "farmers are not responsible for the consequences" is overdoing it. They're not "totally responsible" is fine, since we know the lack of rain would be an uncontrollable factor. But they could still be responsible for some of the consequences of a crop failure. But more than one thing can be responsible for the consequences of a wheat crop's failing. That's not saying "what is the reason that the wheat crops failed", it's saying "who is responsible for each of the things that happened as a result of the wheat crops' failing?" If a farmer never bought crop insurance, and this crop failure makes them go bankrupt, the farmer could still be held responsible for that consequence of a wheat crop's failing, for example.

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   A country’s dependence on agriculture can lead to major

   Out of Scope: depends on agriculture Too Strong: major economic crises Even though the language of "X can lead to Y" is lovably soft (we only need one example to support it), we don't have an example to support it. We weren't told that the country depends on agriculture, and it's not clear that the economic repercussions described would qualify as a "major economic crisis".

   2%
5. E

   Correct71% picked this

   The consequences of a drought are not restricted to the drought’s impact

   Why this is right

   The language of "The consequences of X are not restricted to Y" is lovably soft, since you'd only need one data point to support it. Do we know a consequence of a drought besides causing crops to fail (i.e. besides its impact on farm productivity)? Of course! We have a shiny causal chain in our backpack for you. Let me tell you --- you thought the drought just hurt farm productivity? Have a seat. We're talking seed dealers, fertilizer dealers, truckers, mechanics, and fuel suppliers ... all impacted! This answer is as annoying as that brief playlet I just wrote, because it introduces the idea of drought, and we're being asked on a Must Be True question to magically assume some common sense that a drought is a lack of rain, and that a lack of rain resulting from a drought could plausibly cause wheat crops to fail.

   Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%