Help with May-FLEX LR Q24

huangtiffany15

It's a weakening question. I don't understand why answer is D.

Answer choice is saying the ordinary crop doesn't contain drug. But according to stimulus, after pollination, the ordinary crop may produce drug-producing crop, therefore drug may end up in food supply. Answer choice D doesn't weaken this argument.

I was indecisive between E and B. But I couldn't think of an explanation of D is the right answer. HELPP~

CRISPR24

In this question, the conclusion is that "there is POSSIBILITY that the drug will end up in food supply". Noticing how weak this conclusion is.
Given the possibility of pollen from drug producing crops distributing to nearby field, it is undeniable that it is possible that the genes get into crops nearby; B is simply saying if this situation does not occur, then the drug will not be present in food supply. but what if it does?
Same with E, there is always possibility that the scientist will differentiate the drug producing crops from regular food supply crops, however does it affect the possibility that the drug "would" be present in food supply?
D is correct because it is the crop part where drug is harvested is simply different from the part where food supply is being produced from. I know someone would wonder what if there is cross contamination when people harvest the part for food supply but happen to bring in the drug supply part? Well in LSAT world, we simply do not bring in outside world knowledge into the argument.

disindex

Took some time to break this down in detail.

So you're looking for the option that presents the biggest problem for the argument.

Let's start by reconstructing the argument.

The advocate starts by outlining the context in which the argument takes place. "Some agricultural crops are now being genetically engineered to produce important pharmactuicals." Next, she says "This development raises the possibility that the drugs will end up in the general food supply."

This second sentence is clearly the main conclusion of the argument. The advocate is saying that some crops are being genetically engineered, and this genetic engineering results in some thing (the increased possibility of the drugs ending up in the general food supply). \

So, why does genetic engineering of crops to produce pharmactuicals raise the possibility of the drugs ending up in the general food supply?

""Since, if pollen from a drug-producing crop drifts into a nearby field in which an ordinary, non-drug-producing crop of the same species is being grown, the pollen could fertilize that crop and turn it into a drug producing crop as well""

So that's the main argument in favour of the conclusion.

"If pollen from a drug-producing crop drifts into a nearby field in which an ordinary, non-drug-producing crop of the same species is being grown" then "the pollen could fertilize that crop and turn it into a drug producing crop as well"

So, to summarize the argument, the advocate is saying something close to:

"Some crops are being genetically engineered to make drugs. The genetic engineering of these crops raises the chance that the drug will end up in the general food supply. This is because drifting pollen from drug-producing crops could turn an ordinary crop into a drug producing crop"

Notice that there's a sort of implicit jump that the advocate makes. Her argument does not prove that the drug will end up in the general food supply. Even if we accept all her premises, all her argument shows is that pollen from the drug-producing crop can turn ordinary crops into drug-producing crops. But why does that mean the drug will end up in the general food supply?

To be clear more:

Premise: Crops are being genetically engineered to make drugs
Premise: Drifting pollen from drug-producing crops could turn an ordinary crop into a drug producing crop
Conclusion: This raises the possibility that the drugs will end up in the general food supply.

It's not clear how it raises the possibility. She is assuming that if ordinary crops are turned into drug producing crops, then the drug is more likely to make its way into the general food supply. But this premise isn't stated. Its a logical jump she makes. So the best way to weaken her argument is to focus on this jump.

Option D does that. Imagine some ordinary plant that is in a field next to drug-producing plants. Pollen flies over, and fertilizes the plant. The ordinary plant becomes a drug producing plant. How does this drug now end up in the general food supply? Well it only can if the parts of that plant that have the drug in it are introduced to the food supply. If none of the parts that contain the drug get used for the food supply, the drug itself cannot be introduced to the food supply.