Question: Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers and pesticide in farming is harmful to local wildlife. To produce the same amount of food, however, more land must be under cultivation when organic farming techniques are used than when chemicals are used. Therefore, organic farming leaves less land available as habitat for local wildlife.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the author’s argument depends?
(A) Chemical fertilizers and pesticides pose no health threat to wildlife.
(B) Wildlife living near farms where chemicals are used will not ingest any food or water containing those chemicals.
(C) The only disadvantage to using chemicals in farming is their potential effect on wildlife.
(D) The same crops are grown on organic farms as on farms where chemicals are used.
(E) Land cultivated by organic farming methods no longer constitutes a habitat for wildlife.
“Proponents of organic farming claim that using chemical fertilizers”- is a critical thinking GMAT question. In order to respond to the question, a candidate may decide to present an illogical argument or look for evidence that would refute it. A candidate's capacity for logic and analysis is evaluated on the GMAT critical reasoning exam. Candidates must point out the argument's benefits and drawbacks as well as its logical errors with regard to this subject. Ten to thirteen questions on critical reasoning are included in the CR section of the 36 GMAT verbal questions.
Answer: (E)
Explanation:
Chemical pesticides and fertilizers, according to proponents of organic farming, harm the local wildlife. However, using organic farming methods requires more land to be under cultivation than using chemical farming methods in order to produce the same amount of food. As a result, less land is available for local wildlife to use as a habitat due to organic farming.
Let's look at each option in turn to determine which one best satisfies the criteria in the question.
Option A : Incorrect
This option says that wildlife are not harmed by chemical pesticides and fertilisers. The amount of land used as a wildlife habitat is neither increased or decreased as a result. As a result, this option is ruled out.
Option B : Incorrect
According to this option, wildlife that resides close to farms that use chemicals won't consume any food or water that contains those chemicals. This has nothing to do with the verdict. The critical issue here is chemical fields. The Organic Fields are not discussed here. As a result, this option is ruled out.
Option C : Incorrect
According to this option, the only drawback of using chemicals in agriculture is the potential harm they may cause to wildlife. Instead of the impact on the wildlife's lands, this is discussing the potential impact on wildlife. As a result, this option is ruled out.
Option D : Incorrect
According to this option, the same crops are raised on chemical- and organic-free farms. No matter what can be grown, it doesn't matter. The land is the important aspect of the question. As a result, this option is ruled out.
Option E : Correct
This option states that land used for organic farming no longer serves as a wildlife habitat. This reinforces the judgment. By doing this, it is impossible for wild animals to coexist on land used for organic farming. As a result, this is the right answer.
From the explanations given above, it is clear that the final option is the appropriate answer.
Suggested GMAT Critical Reasoning Samples
- The nature of English literature reflects the rich and diverse vocabulary of the English language GMAT critical reasoning
- A study released by a major medical center has found that people who experience a stroke are frequently not treated quickly GMAT critical reasoning
- The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane GMAT critical reasoning
- The cotton farms of Country Q became so productive that the market could not absorb all that they produced GMAT critical reasoning
- The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia GMAT critical reasoning
- Tanco, a leather manufacturer, uses large quantities of common salt to preserve animal hides GMAT critical reasoning
- Sol Citrus, a small orchard that produces only organic citrus fruit, has faced new competition GMAT critical reasoning
- Studies have shown that elderly people who practice a religion are much more likely to die GMAT critical reasoning
- Health officials claim that because the foods and beverages mentioned or consumed on many television programs GMAT critical reasoning
- Monthly employee evaluations are an excellent tool for managers GMAT critical reasoning
- Engineers are investigating the suitability of Wantastiquet Pass as the site of a new bridge GMAT critical reasoning
- According to researchers, students exposed to a wider variety of GMAT question types fared better than students who were only exposed to a narrow set of GMAT questions GMAT Critical Reasoning
- Physician: The Hormone Melatonin Has Shown Promise as a Medication for Sleep Disorders When Taken in Synthesized Form GMAT Critical Reasoning
- In order to reduce the number of items damaged while in transit to customers, packaging consultants recommended GMAT Critical Reasoning
- A major health insurance company in Lagolia pays for special procedures prescribed by physicians GMAT Critical Reasoning
- In the first half of this year, from January to June, about three million videocassette recorders were sold GMAT Critical Reasoning
- An airplane engine manufacturer developed a new engine model with safety features lacking in the earlier model GMAT Critical Reasoning
- Economist A: Banks offer only small interest rates for money being stored in savings accounts GMAT Critical Reasoning
- It is known that all dogs go to heaven GMAT Critical Reasoning
- Toughened hiring standards have not been the primary cause of the present staffing shortage in public schools GMAT Critical Reasoning
Comments