#7 - For many types of crops, hybrid strains have been

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (C)

Even though in test plantings hybrid strains of crops produce higher yields than traditional strains, in reality replacing traditional with hybrid strains produces no significant increase in crop yields. The question is “why?”. When examining answers, ask yourself if the information in the answer choice could explain the discrepancy between the expected and the actual crop yield from hybrid strains. If so, the answer is correct.

Answer choice (A): Even though hybrid farms are larger than traditional farms, it is unclear how the size of the farm would affect the crop yield from hybrid strains. The discrepancy here is between expected and actual hybrid crop yield, not between hybrid and traditional crop yields.

Answer choice (B): Even though hybrid strains of crops produced higher yields in some areas, it is still unclear why the overall success of hybrid crops has been less stellar than expected.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the hybrid strains were tested under more favorable conditions than are found in the real world, then no wonder farmers didn’t see the results they expected. Because this answer choice is able to explain the discrepancy between the actual and the expected hybrid crop yields, it is correct.

Answer choice (D): Whether the crops produced by traditional strains of plants taste better or not is irrelevant and does not explain the discrepancy in expected vs. actual yields from hybrid crops. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Whether crops from hybrid strains are subsidized or not is immaterial to the paradox at hand. This answer choice is incorrect.

[PositiveThinker]

I came down to C and D on this answer choice because i assumed the word "yield" from the stimulus meant a return on investment. So i picked D because it talked about selling better. I absolutely see how C is correct but how should i look at the word yield in a stimulus in the future? As just producing more, or actually making more money?


Hopefully that question makes sense. Thanks for all your help

[Adam Tyson]

Your question makes perfect sense, don't worry! In terms of crops, Thinker, "yield" means only how much you get from the plant, and has nothing to do with how much you sell it for or how well it sells. If plant A produces a pound of fruit and plant B produces two pounds, then plant B's yield is twice that of plant A's. It makes no difference whether people buy the fruit from plant B, the yield is still double. Contrast that with "return" and then you would perhaps, depending on the context, be talking about sales and revenues, maybe profits.

Keep at it!

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
I have question for AC C and E.
When reading the Stimulus, my understanding is that in the test, hybrid strains produced more than nonhybrid & in many parts of the world, when replacing nonhybrid with hybrid, the crop yields in those particular places did not increase. Thus, the first part is a comparison between hybrid and nonhybrid in testing. The second part is comparison of what is before (nonhybrid) and what is after (hybrid) in that places. However, AC C is trying to compare the crop yield in those particular places with the crop yield in the testing. I don't think they are comparable. C could only explain that the hybrid in testing might yield more crops than hybrid in the places. It could not explain why in that particular places, when replacing nonhybrid with hybrid, did not see the crop yields increase. However, AC E, I think, does give an explanation in which it argues that since gov subsidizes farmers who plant only hybrid strains, it is possible that (my speculation) farmers actually plant less crop since they got the gov sub thus the total crop yields have not increased.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi CJ,,

Crop yield describes how much food/product you get per area planted with a specific plant. The facts we have are that in testing, hybrid strains had higher yields than nonhybrid strains in the same area. However, in practice, when switching from nonhybrid strains to hybrid strains, crop yields did not increase.

We need to explain why. Answer choice (E) talks about a motivation farmers might have for planting hybrid plants. But it doesn't explain the discrepancy at all. Crop yields would be something like 10 bushels per acre in testing versus 8 bushels per acre in actuality. The number of acres planted is irrelevant to the yield because the yield is a ratio. However if answer choice (C) was true, that the hybrid varieties were tested in better conditions than the real-world planting could achieve, it would explain why the yields promised by testing were not achieved in the field.

Hope that helps!

[azkirk123]

This is making me nuts. These forum answers are usually so helpful but I am puzzled by these.

I don't think Rachael answered CJ's question above to my satisfaction!

Basically, as I understand it, the stimulus tells us that an experiment confirmed that when hybrid crops are grown side-by-side next to traditional crops, under the same conditions, the hybrid crops outperform the traditional crops. And yet, in the places where farmers have actually switched their traditional crops for hybrid crops, crop yields have not increased.

It doesn't make sense to say, "oh, well the soils are worse there, compared to the test planting, that's why the yields didn't improve." We aren't comparing the hybrid yields in real life to the promised hybrid yields from the experiment. We are comparing the yields in the places with lots of hybrid crops to the yields *in those same exact places* back when the farmers were using traditional crops.

So I was looking for an answer choice along the lines of....
1) Hybrid crops don't outperform traditional crops in rainy places (or sandy soils, or whatever), and it was only farmers in rainy places that made the switch.
Or maybe:
2) Hybrid seeds are much more expensive, so farmers who switch tend to plant less overall acreage.

Or something like that.

I got stuck between C and E because both seemed like they *could* offer explanations along the lines above. Maybe hybrid seeds only outperform traditional seeds in good growing conditions? (But that's an assumption, it's not in the stimulus or the answer choice). Maybe the hybrid seeds ARE more productive, but the government subsidies encourage farmers to plant less (because their income is being supplemented with subsidies) and the overall result is that crop yields stay steady? (But those are assumptions too?) IDK, it's all unsatisfying.

Surely the test writers must sometimes make mistakes?????? Is this just a poorly written question?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi azkirk,

While the test makers do occasionally make mistakes, it is rare, and this isn't one of those times as far as I can tell.

The first step in solving a Resolve the Paradox question like this is correctly identifying the paradox and understanding why it seems like a paradox at first glance.

Here, as you noted, the hybrid strains produced higher yields of crops than the traditional non-hybrid strains under test conditions. We would expect, all else being equal, that similar results would happen outside the test plantings in the real world (by which I mean the non-testing places where the farmers replaced the traditional crops with the hybrids). However, what actually happens in many parts of the real world is that the hybrids do not increase the yield when they replace the traditional non-hybrid strains. Since this is the opposite of what we'd expect, it presents an apparent paradox/discrepancy. The key, of course, are the words "all else being equal." Something in these two different situations is not equal.

Since we are trying to explain the difference between the results in the test and the real world, we're likely looking for a difference in the conditions between the test and the real world.

Your first prephrase:

1) Hybrid crops don't outperform traditional crops in rainy places (or sandy soils, or whatever), and it was only farmers in rainy places that made the switch.

actually addresses one possible difference, and would be the type of answer that you're seeking.

Of course, we'd also need to know that the test conditions were not rainy, because otherwise this wouldn't explain why the hybrids did better than the traditional in the test.

Answer C gets at a similar idea, which is why it is the correct answer. The fact that the farming conditions (e.g. rain, soil, temperature, etc.) were much better under testing conditions than in most areas where farmers grow those strains shows a critical difference between the test conditions and the real world conditions. This difference could explain the difference in the results. For example, imagine that the hybrid strain does produce a higher yield than traditional when the conditions are right/ideal, such as in the test. However, when conditions are not ideal, the hybrid produces a similar yield to the traditional crop. If so, that would explain the discrepancy.

You wrote:

It doesn't make sense to say, "oh, well the soils are worse there, compared to the test planting, that's why the yields didn't improve." We aren't comparing the hybrid yields in real life to the promised hybrid yields from the experiment. We are comparing the yields in the places with lots of hybrid crops to the yields *in those same exact places* back when the farmers were using traditional crops.

Actually, it does make sense to compare the soils in the real world to the test planting because the difference in the soils (or any other condition such as rain) could affect the hybrids differently than the traditional crops. You're right that we aren't comparing the yields of the hybrids in the test to the yields of the hybrids in the real world. We are, however, comparing the differences in yields between the two versions of these crops (hybrid vs. traditional) in two different settings and trying to explain the different results in those two settings.

As for your second prephrase,

2) Hybrid seeds are much more expensive, so farmers who switch tend to plant less overall acreage.

that one does not work because it does not resolve the paradox that is given. The paradox is that the hybrids are not yielding more crops than the traditional when they are planted in the real world (as they should be based on the test results). As Rachael mentioned, yield refers to a ratio of how much crop per unit of land (such as per acre). The fact that hybrid seeds are more expensive doesn't explain why they aren't producing more yield (i.e. it doesn't explain why the crops aren't working as intended/advertised). If the paradox had been that farmers weren't planting the hybrids even though the hybrids produce better yields, then an answer getting at how expensive the seeds are, or how the hybrids taste, or how much/little the hybrid crops can be sold for, etc. would be possible explanations.

[azkirk123]

This is helpful, I really appreciate it! I was interpreting crop yields as referring to the total amount of X produced in a specific province / region / country / part of the world (i.e., if Ukraine normally produces 2 million bushels of wheat a year, and it goes down to 1 million in a given year, I think many people would say that the wheat yield in Ukraine had decreased). I still think that's a reasonable understanding based on the dictionary definition of yield (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/yield) but I do see where your explanation is coming from. Appreciate it!