Scientists have made genetic modifications to cotton to increase its resistance to insect pests. According to farmers' report, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not. Therefore, since the modified seed costs more than ordinary seed without producing yields of higher market value, switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following would it be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
Whether farmers who tried the modified cotton seed had ever tried growing other crops from genetically modified seed.
Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops.
Whether for most farmers who grow cotton it is their primary crop.
Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did.
Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide.
下面的解释我也勉强同意,不过我这里疑问的是,b选项里说用在棉花上的杀虫剂的成本要比别的农作物的杀虫剂要高,可是题目当中要求评估的就是对棉花农业有没有收益啊,如果回答是,那就说明受益的是除了棉花以外的农业,并不是棉花啊。按照这个逻辑不是应该属于无关选项吗?
B的意思是是否棉花farmer用的农药要比其它农作物的农药贵,这是对题目里的farmers' report进行补充,Report只是说amount(数量)但没说价格,如果棉花的农药要比普通的贵,那基因工程省下来的那点农药所带来的economic benefit就多了。虽然削弱的程度确实很小,但相比其它无关选项,这是最能改变结论的信息了。D选项,使用的亩数是不是够多并不能削弱report的内容,因为report说的是per acres。E选项,同样也是没有撼动report的内容,过去ordinary seeds用的农药多不影响modified seeds比ordinary用的slightly
lower这个结论
我也是因为认为B是超出讨论范围所以排除了
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论