Critical Reasoning
Verbal Ability

 Back to Questions
Q.

Electricity would revolutionize agriculture according to a prediction of the not-so-distant future published in 1940. Electrodes would be inserted into the soil, and the current between them would kill bugs and weeds and make crop plants stronger.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the logic of the prediction above is flawed?

 A.

In order for farmers to avoid electric shock while working in the fields, the current could be turned off at such times without diminishing the intended effects

 B.

If the proposed plan for using electricity were put into practice, farmers would save on chemicals now being added to the soil.

 C.

It cannot be taken for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial.

 D.

Since weeds are plants, electricity would affect weeds in the same way as it would affect crop plants.

 E.

Because a planting machine would need to avoid coming into contact with the electrodes, new parts for planting machines would need to be designed.

 Hide Ans

Solution:
Option(D) is correct

Option A : The logic of the prediction has nothing to do with whether the current can be turned on and off; rather, it is concerned with the current itself and its effects.

Option B : Rather than suggesting that the logic of the prediction is flawed, this serves to support the prediction: Farmers saving on chemicals would be part of the predicted agricultural revolution.

Option C : The argument does not take for granted that the use of electricity is always beneficial; it merely suggests that it would be of great benefit to agriculture.

Option D : Correct. This statement properly identifies a problem with the prediction: It provides no reason to believe that the electricity would affect crop plants and weeds differently.

Option E : Rather than suggesting that the logic of the prediction is flawed, this serves to support the prediction: Changes in planting machines would be part of the predicted agricultural revolution.


(0) Comment(s)