GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Insecticide Q is noteworthy both for its control of pests that attack
[#permalink]
09 Jun 2021, 04:42
09 Jun 2021, 04:42
2
Expert Reply
7
Bookmarks
Question 1
00:00
Question Stats:
19% (01:59) correct
81% (01:42) wrong based on 146 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Insecticide Q is noteworthy both for its control of pests that attack crops and its benignity toward humans. However, its effects only last 30 days, a period insufficient to protect any major crop until harvest, and reapplication of Insecticide Q usually kills the crop. Insecticide P, on the other hand, can be reapplied indefinitely without damaging the crop. Therefore, Insecticide Q has no discernible use in the protection of major crops.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A) There are several minor crops that can be harvested in as few as 20 days.
B) A third insecticide not mentioned in the passage protects crops better than either Insecticide Q or P.
C) Foods treated with Insecticide P are often banned from organic markets.
D) Both Insecticides Q and P can be used on the same crop.
E) The production of Insecticide P, once economical, has recently tripled in cost.
Insecticide Q is noteworthy both for its control of pests that attack
[#permalink]
09 Jul 2023, 11:31
09 Jul 2023, 11:31
4
Expert Reply
Insecticide Q is noteworthy both for its control of pests that attack crops and its benignity toward humans.
Ok: here we have a double benefit of the chemical
However, its effects only last 30 days, a period insufficient to protect any major crop until harvest, and reapplication of Insecticide Q usually kills the crop.
here we do have a downside: only one month the protection lasts and a reapplication would kill the crop. USUALLY
Insecticide P, on the other hand, can be reapplied indefinitely without damaging the crop. Therefore, Insecticide Q has no discernible use in the protection of major crops.
Ok. The P compound instead can be reapplied indefinitely but maybe in the first 30 days does not have the same positive effects. We do not know. Therefore, Q is not usable according with the argument
We need to find an option that tells us P has some flaw or that Q is useful indeed. Notice how therefore indicates us the conclusion of the argument and this is what we must attack
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A) There are several minor crops that can be harvested in as few as 20 days.
This option does not tell us anything of useful. The fact that minor crops can be harvested before the month not indicate something about if Q is good or not. we already know that Q lasts for 30 days. Moreover, it is not specified IF this is the first or the second application or else
B) A third insecticide not mentioned in the passage protects crops better than either Insecticide Q or P.
Completely OFF as an option. A third compound is NOT what we are looking for to undermine the argument itself
C) Foods treated with Insecticide P are often banned from organic markets.
Stupid option. We need to find something related to the treatment of the crops NOT the banning of food
D) Both Insecticides Q and P can be used on the same crop.
This tells us that Q is useful and effective. For example: we can use it in the first month to protect the crop and THEN use P for a reapplication until we harvest the crop BOTh on the same plant and also both are not harmful for humans. Sooo Q is any good, contrary to our conclusion
E) The production of Insecticide P, once economical, has recently tripled in cost.
Irrelevant
I hope this helps
Ok: here we have a double benefit of the chemical
However, its effects only last 30 days, a period insufficient to protect any major crop until harvest, and reapplication of Insecticide Q usually kills the crop.
here we do have a downside: only one month the protection lasts and a reapplication would kill the crop. USUALLY
Insecticide P, on the other hand, can be reapplied indefinitely without damaging the crop. Therefore, Insecticide Q has no discernible use in the protection of major crops.
Ok. The P compound instead can be reapplied indefinitely but maybe in the first 30 days does not have the same positive effects. We do not know. Therefore, Q is not usable according with the argument
We need to find an option that tells us P has some flaw or that Q is useful indeed. Notice how therefore indicates us the conclusion of the argument and this is what we must attack
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?
A) There are several minor crops that can be harvested in as few as 20 days.
This option does not tell us anything of useful. The fact that minor crops can be harvested before the month not indicate something about if Q is good or not. we already know that Q lasts for 30 days. Moreover, it is not specified IF this is the first or the second application or else
B) A third insecticide not mentioned in the passage protects crops better than either Insecticide Q or P.
Completely OFF as an option. A third compound is NOT what we are looking for to undermine the argument itself
C) Foods treated with Insecticide P are often banned from organic markets.
Stupid option. We need to find something related to the treatment of the crops NOT the banning of food
D) Both Insecticides Q and P can be used on the same crop.
This tells us that Q is useful and effective. For example: we can use it in the first month to protect the crop and THEN use P for a reapplication until we harvest the crop BOTh on the same plant and also both are not harmful for humans. Sooo Q is any good, contrary to our conclusion
E) The production of Insecticide P, once economical, has recently tripled in cost.
Irrelevant
I hope this helps
Insecticide Q is noteworthy both for its control of pests that attack
[#permalink]
28 Jun 2023, 23:29
28 Jun 2023, 23:29
2
The proposed answer makes no sense - it assumes that Q will be used for the first 30 days and P for the subsequent period. If P can be reapplied indefinitely without damaging a crop, while Q can only be used for the first 30 days, why are we assuming both will be used. Why can't P be used for the entirety of the period?
As for the OE, which mentions Q's harmless nature towards humans, following that logic would mean that it could still be used in lieu of P for certain crops because P does not yield output that is fit for human consumptions, while Q does. If anything, option C is slightly supported.
As for the OE, which mentions Q's harmless nature towards humans, following that logic would mean that it could still be used in lieu of P for certain crops because P does not yield output that is fit for human consumptions, while Q does. If anything, option C is slightly supported.
