- Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:17 pm
This question is a Main Point (Fill in the Blank) question.
The correct answer is the statement that most logically follows from the premises that have been given without taking the argument in a completely new direction.
The premises state that certain pesticides give an immediate short term gain in crop yield, but that these gains diminish over the long term.
We're looking for an answer that follows from this idea without adding in unreasonable assumptions.
Answer A is too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides is uneconomic, only that the benefits diminish over time.
Answer B is wrong because damage to the environment was never discussed in this argument.
Answer C is also too extreme. We don't know that using pesticides will make pest problems unmanageable, only that the benefits diminish over time.
Answer D is wrong because the idea that the pesticides are not being used according to the instructions was never discussed in this argument and there is no reason to assume that the instructions were not being followed.
Answer E is correct because it follows most logically from the premises.
Even though Answer E discusses financial returns, which were not specifically discussed in the premises, it makes logical sense that (all other things being equal) the larger a yield of crops, the more money a farmer can make. Presumably, the exact reason to use the pesticides and get a larger yield of crops is to make more money.
Given this direct correlation between crop yield and financial returns, if the benefit of pesticides diminishes over time, then the extra crop yields will diminish over time, and also the related financial returns.