PT158 S4 Q24 ExplanationConsumer advocate: Some agricultural crops

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Impact8% picked this

   As far as scientists know, none of the pharmaceuticals produced by genetically engineered crops would present any danger to public health if they were

   This answer addresses the severity of the consequence rather than the likelihood of it occurring. The argument claims drugs could contaminate the food supply through pollen drift. Saying the drugs are not harmful does not challenge whether contamination happens -- it just says the contamination would not be dangerous. But the argument's concern is about unintended pharmaceutical contamination of the food supply as a matter of principle and safety. Conceding that contamination occurs while arguing it is harmless does not weaken the claim that drugs will "end up in the general food supply." A strong weakener must challenge the mechanism, not downplay the consequences.

   8%
2. B

   Validates the Concern13% picked this

   If pollen from a genetically engineered crop is prevented from drifting into fields in which ordinary crops of the same species are being grown,

   This answer says that if pollen drift were prevented, there would be no risk of contamination. But this actually confirms the argument's core claim -- that pollen drift IS the mechanism by which drugs could enter the food supply. Saying "you can prevent the risk by preventing drift" validates the causal chain rather than breaking it. It is an operational suggestion for risk management, not a logical challenge to the argument's reasoning. The argument would still be correct that the risk exists; this answer just says the risk could be mitigated through active prevention measures.

   13%
3. C

   Reduces Scale but Does Not Eliminate11% picked this

   The genetically engineered crops that produce pharmaceuticals are not among the crop species that comprise the largest portions

   This answer says the plants engineered for drug production are not among those constituting the largest portion of the food supply. This limits the potential scope of contamination to minor food crops -- pollen would only affect closely related species, and if the drug crops are not closely related to major staples, the biggest crops might be safe. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Cross-pollination could still affect some food crops, even minor ones. "Minor" food crops still enter the food supply; they are just consumed in smaller quantities. The argument's concern is that drugs could contaminate any food crops, and narrowing the scope does not break the causal mechanism.

   11%
4. D

   Correct61% picked this

   In crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, the drugs are not present in any part of the plant used for food in

   Why this is right

   This answer breaks the causal chain at its most critical link. Even if pollen drifts from drug-producing crops to ordinary food crops of the same species, and even if cross-pollination transfers the drug-producing genetic trait, the drugs are not present in the parts of the plant that people actually eat. The genetic modification may be inherited, and the plant may technically produce the pharmaceutical compound, but if that compound appears only in roots, stems, or leaves of a crop harvested for its fruit or grain, it never enters the food supply. The mechanism exists, but it does not reach your plate. The argument's conclusion -- that drugs will end up in the food people consume -- does not follow.

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

   61%
5. E

   After-the-Fact Detection6% picked this

   If pollen from a drug-producing crop turned an ordinary crop of the same species into a drug-producing crop, it would be possible for

   This answer says scientists could identify which food crops have been cross-pollinated with drug-producing crops. While detection capability might help manage the problem, it does not weaken the argument that contamination could occur. Detection is a response after the fact, not a prevention mechanism. If scientists can identify contaminated crops, that implicitly concedes contamination happens -- the ability to detect it actually supports the argument's premise that cross-pollination occurs. A true weakener should show the contamination cannot meaningfully occur, not offer a monitoring program for contamination that does occur.

   6%