Farmer: Crops genetically engineered

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct48% picked this

   Use of the crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests in place of crops that have been sprayed with insecticides will

   Why this is right

   This correct answer is a language connector (Missing Link) between the premise and the conclusion. Premise: the GMO crops don't need insecticide Conclusion: the GMO crops will let wildlife recover This answer is essentially saying, "If we use the GMO crops instead of the insecticide-laden normal crops, it'll be better for the local wildlife." If we negated this, it would be saying, "Using the GMO crops will cause at least as much harm to local wildlife as the normal crops w/ insecticide do." That would blow up the conclusion. The correct answer, when negated, just has to weaken, but in this case it pretty much contradicts the conclusion. Generally, there are three ways to feel about a correct Necessary Assumption answer, and this is the 3rd way (the least common). 1. This answer is right, because the author did make a move from this concept to that concept. 2. This answer is right, because if we negated it, it would weaken. 3. This answer is right, because the author was clearly thinking this.

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

   48%
2. B

   Too Strong: even slightly / likely22% picked this

   Wildlife populations that have been harmed by the excessive spraying of insecticides on croplands are likely to recover if the amount of insecticides sprayed

   The author's conclusion is more squishy than this level of precision. She's saying "using it more widely" is likely to help. As we use GMO crops more widely, the amount of insecticides on those newly switched crops are reduced completely, not slightly. When we switch from traditional crop to GMO crop, we turn pesticides down to 0. The author is predicting that turning some croplands down to 0 pesticides will likely help wildlife recover. We don't know that she clearly thinks even a slight reduction in pesticide would lead to recovery.

   22%
3. C

   Too Strong: never17% picked this

   Crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests are never sprayed with insecticides

   The author doesn't have to assume pesticides are never used on GMO crops. She's just assuming that as these GMO crops would increase in usage, some if not most of them would be pesticide free. When you negate "never", you get a puny objection of, "Hey, author, there was at least one time when someone sprayed pesticides on GMO crops".

   17%
4. D

   Out of Scope: cost5% picked this

   Use of crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests is no more costly to farmers than the use of insecticides on

   The issue of cost is out of scope, because we're only analyzing what effect this switch would have on local wildlife populations' recovering.

   5%
5. E

   If-Conclusion8% picked this

   If a wider use of certain crops that have been genetically engineered to resist insect pests is likely to help at least some wildlife

   The "if" part of this conditional is the argument's conclusion. That is always wrong. (The "if" part can be the negation of the conclusion) An author's argument is only trying to get to its Main Conclusion. That's the final destination. The truth value of the claim in the Conclusion is the only verdict we're interested in. Any answer saying "If Conclusion, then ..." is wrong since it's saying the author made a move from the conclusion to something else. It's either gonna give us an Illegal reversal, going from Conclusion to Evidence, or it's just going to give us some bogus extra move, as this answer does. The author doesn't need to assume that the benefit of GMO crops is only the pesticide thing. If you negate that answer and say, "Hey, author, the local wildlife from the GMO crops in another way too", it only strengthens the likelihood of her conclusion being true.

   8%