PrepTest 141, Section 4, 26. Farmer: Crops genetically engineered…

How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?

Only the right answer will support the conclusion without bringing in anything new, which is a simpler but still really effective way of saying only the right answer must be true if the conclusion is true.

Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:

using such genetically engineered crops more widely is likely to help wildlife populations to recover.

Farmer: [BACKGROUND]. Since [SUPPORT], [CONCLUSION].

The test is expecting you to catch that the conclusion makes a comparison, even though the author says it in kind of a tricky way. But basically the argument is that genetically engineered crops are better for wildlife than insecticides.

If that makes sense, you should also catch the support is totally one-sided. Just because insecticides have been harmful doesn’t mean there weren’t other good things about using insecticides or that there aren’t other bad things about genetically engineered crops. The author is assuming those other factors aren’t out there, and that’s what the right answer is gonna say.

Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:

(A) Use of…genetically engineered…in place of…insecticides will cause less harm to wildlife…

Boom! It’s wordy as hell, but here’s the same comparison between “genetically engineered” and “insecticides”, and it agrees that the former is better for wildlife.

(B) …if the amount of insecticides sprayed on those croplands is reduced even slightly.

Ooh, close but no cigar. The conclusion doesn’t rely on reducing insecticides, only on the benefit of using the genetically engineered crops more. So this answer doesn’t have to be true, since there could be other ways that genetically engineered crops help wildlife even if crops are still sprayed the same amount.

(C) …are never sprayed with insecticides…

Too strong. The background info does only say they “do not need to be sprayed”, so this would help the conclusion if we wanted to add support. But this isn’t a “strengthen” question. We’re looking for support that doesn’t add anything. It’s totally possible that genetically engineered crops could help wildlife recover even if they’re sprayed with just a little bit of insecticide.

(D) …is no more costly…

The argument doesn’t mention or make any reference to money.

(E) …it is likely to have that effect only because its use will prevent…

Too strong. The author doesn’t get into any other reasons why genetically engineered crops are better for wildlife, so this argument isn’t related to whether those other reasons exist. More simply, there’s no ‘only’, ‘required’, ‘necessary’, or any other ‘must be’ language in the passage.

(A) is the correct answer.

Common pattern/s in this question: It’s pretty crucial that you recognize arguments that make comparisons even when the wording of the passage disguises it. Right answers will pretty much always map to the same comparison.