#24 - Consumer advocate: Some agricultural crops are now

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D).

In this argument, the author lays out a scenario whereby genetically engineered drug-producing plants could cross-pollinate regular plants and turn them into drug-producing variants. From this series of premises the author concludes that the drugs produced by these plants could end up in the food supply. Our task, according to the stem, is to weaken that conclusion, so we need an answer that suggests that even if the premises are correct and regular plants start producing drugs, those drugs would not get into the food supply. A simple prephrase might be "the drugs won't get into the food supply" - a simple contradiction of the conclusion, which is often a very good place to start with a Weaken question.

Answer choice (A): While we, and the author, might be concerned about dangers posed by drugs getting into the food supply, the argument is not about those dangers, so downplaying the danger does nothing to address the conclusion that the drugs will get into the food supply. It's not about whether they are dangerous, but whether they are in our food at all.

Answer choice (B): This answer might seem comforting, but it fails to address the issue of whether drugs would end up in the food supply if the pollen did manage to fertilize the normal crops. "If we prevent it, we're okay" doesn't weaken a claim that "if we don't prevent it, we aren't okay."

Answer choice (C): What percentage of the food supply the crops in question constitute is not the issue. Even if they are just one half of one percent of the food supply, there remains the issue of whether drugs would be in that food or not. We need an answer that suggests that the drugs will not get into ANY food in the general supply.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. If the drugs are not in any part of the plant that is considered food (maybe just in the branches or leaves or bark of a fruit tree, but not in the fruit itself), then even though the plants may be producing drugs, those drugs will not enter the general food supply. That's exactly what we needed to weaken this argument.

Answer choice (E): Another comforting answer, this means that perhaps scientists might be able to prevent the drugs from entering the food supply ("Look out, that's a drug-producing variant, don't let that go to the grocery store!"), but just because they could identify the plant doesn't mean that they will, or that they will do so in every case before the food has entered the food supply.

[electiondistraction]

Hi! Thanks for all your help thus far (I use these forums every day but it's my first time posting!). I'm doing some final prep before my test on Saturday...

For this question, I narrowed it down to (C) and (D) but ended up choosing (C).

I see now that just because these crops don’t comprise "the largest portions" of the crop supply doesn't mean they won't make their way into the food supply at all, per the stimulus. However, I am still unsure of what answer choice D really means and therefore how it weakens.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi distraction (and couldn't we all use one of those right now!)

In this question, we have to exploit the weakness in the author's argument. The author here is worried that genetically enhanced plants will pollute the food supply with drugs. Just because the drug producing plant can pollinate a non-drug producing version of the plant does not mean that it would necessarily get drugs into the food supply.

Here's my (admittedly ridiculous) way of picturing the situation. Let's say you have corn. You can genetically engineer corn plants to produce not only corn, but also tylenol pills. So, the corn plants would have tylenol buds and/or corn buds, but it would be clear which is which. That's what answer choice (D) describes. The drug producing part of the plant is not the same as the food producing part. That would weaken the author's argument that these genetically engineered crops could put drugs in our food supply.

Answer choice (C) wouldn't have an impact on the argument because the question isn't about how much of it would get into the food supply, the question is if any of it would get into the food supply.

Hope that helps, and that the LSAT continues to be a helpful distraction for you this week.

[electiondistraction]

Thank you, Rachel! That makes a lot of sense and I appreciate your description of a potential scenario! Best of luck to you and whatever outlets you may find re: distraction.

[funky_fancy_name]

I wonder if anyone could help me explain why E is wrong. My thought process is that, if scientists can identify ordinary crop from drug-producing crop, then the possibility that drugs will end up in the general food supply is not very high (already separate when harvest, etc. )

[Adam Tyson]

Check up above, funky fancy - we have now added a full explanation for this question. I'll add this about answer E: In order for this answer to do any damage to the argument we would have to add a few assumptions of our own, such as that scientists both can and will identify it before any food from those plants gets out into the general supply, and that someone, such as farmers or regulators, will listen to the scientists and take action to stop 100% of that food from getting out. When an answer needs that much help, it's not a very good answer, and we should reject it. Correct answers are correct with no help at all from us!

[funky_fancy_name]

Thank you very much. I got it now. The wording of D was a bit hard for me to understand and I skipped it.

[Albertlyu]

hi PS,

please may I ask if answer choice D can be translated into: "drugs are not present in the pollen of the genetically engineered crops." therefore even if it fertilize the ordinary crop, the ordinary crop will not be turned into drug crops.

I am confused by the word:"used for food in ordinary crops". I am wondering if it means the pollen of the drug crops.

thanks,

Albert

[Robert Carroll]

Albert,

No, answer choice (D) is instead saying that the parts of the plants used for food are not the parts where the drugs are. Therefore, even if the drug-producing plants spread, the food parts can be separated out and eaten safely without worrying about contamination from the drug-producing parts.

There's no indication that the drugs are on the pollen or that the pollen is eaten. The pollen is the way the plants reproduce, so if drug-producing plants have their pollen spread, a crop fertilized by that pollen could grow to become drug-producing itself. The pollen doesn't contain the drugs, but instead the genetic information that causes a plant fertilized by it to become drug-producing.

An example might help. Imagine we can engineer bananas that produce drugs in their peels. People don't normally eat the peels. So the part of the banana that is used for food can be different than the part that contains drugs.

Robert Carroll

[npant120]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (D).

In this argument, the author lays out a scenario whereby genetically engineered drug-producing plants could cross-pollinate regular plants and turn them into drug-producing variants. From this series of premises the author concludes that the drugs produced by these plants could end up in the food supply. Our task, according to the stem, is to weaken that conclusion, so we need an answer that suggests that even if the premises are correct and regular plants start producing drugs, those drugs would not get into the food supply. A simple prephrase might be "the drugs won't get into the food supply" - a simple contradiction of the conclusion, which is often a very good place to start with a Weaken question.

Answer choice (A): While we, and the author, might be concerned about dangers posed by drugs getting into the food supply, the argument is not about those dangers, so downplaying the danger does nothing to address the conclusion that the drugs will get into the food supply. It's not about whether they are dangerous, but whether they are in our food at all.

Answer choice (B): This answer might seem comforting, but it fails to address the issue of whether drugs would end up in the food supply if the pollen did manage to fertilize the normal crops. "If we prevent it, we're okay" doesn't weaken a claim that "if we don't prevent it, we aren't okay."

Answer choice (C): What percentage of the food supply the crops in question constitute is not the issue. Even if they are just one half of one percent of the food supply, there remains the issue of whether drugs would be in that food or not. We need an answer that suggests that the drugs will not get into ANY food in the general supply.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. If the drugs are not in any part of the plant that is considered food (maybe just in the branches or leaves or bark of a fruit tree, but not in the fruit itself), then even though the plants may be producing drugs, those drugs will not enter the general food supply. That's exactly what we needed to weaken this argument.

Answer choice (E): Another comforting answer, this means that perhaps scientists might be able to prevent the drugs from entering the food supply ("Look out, that's a drug-producing variant, don't let that go to the grocery store!"), but just because they could identify the plant doesn't mean that they will, or that they will do so in every case before the food has entered the food supply.

Hello,

I had a question about this statement regarding answer choice B.
"Answer choice (B): This answer might seem comforting, but it fails to address the issue of whether drugs would end up in the food supply if the pollen did manage to fertilize the normal crops. "If we prevent it, we're okay" doesn't weaken a claim that "if we don't prevent it, we aren't okay.""

Why is it that saying "if we prevent it, we're okay" isn't enough to weaken this conclusion? Is it because we have to accept the stimulus as it is and the stimulus says that we're working in a world where we don't prevent the pollen from fertilizing the normal crops? I get why the correct answer works, but just wondering why this choice does not work as I've similar answer choices in past questions and they always stop me for a second.