QUESTION TEXT: The local agricultural official gave the fruit…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception
CONCLUSION: The official concluded that the new pesticide was better than the old pesticide at lowering the amount of fruit lost to insects, in the short run.
REASONING: Farmers tried the new pesticide for three years, and less fruit was lost to insects.
ANALYSIS: This sounds like a good argument. But a lot can change in three years.
It’s much better to do a controlled experiment, where you compare both pesticides over the same period, in similar conditions.
___________
- CORRECT. The conclusion wasn’t about the amount of fruit. It was about the proportion of fruit lost to insects.
- It could be the new program and not the pesticide that reduced losses from insects.
- This could mean that birds killed more insects. So it was the birds that protected crops from insects, and not pesticides.
- This shows that the area wasn’t very suitable for insects. Fewer insects could explain why fewer crops fell victim to insects.
- This shows that the old pesticide could still have been effective during those three years. The new pesticide might not have had any effect.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply