PrepTest 159, Section 1, Question 14
Environmentalist: The adoption of genetically engineered crops in(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AA genetically engineered(17 more words not shown)
- BIf a crop(19 more words not shown)
- CNo crop that(19 more words not shown)
- DIf rigorous testing(24 more words not shown)
- EIf rigorous studies(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Before we require testing for every new genetically engineered crop, I want to know what problem the test will catch and why testing is the right response.
The environmentalist gives us a serious concern: rapid adoption and loose monitoring create a significant risk to sensitive ecosystems. One crop was already widely planted before researchers found that it could threaten monarch butterflies. Let's keep the scope straight. A significant risk is a reason for concern, but it isn't a statement that every planting has already caused damage.
Exposure could matter. Imagine a crop that threatens a particular species only when grown near it, but the crop is planted far away. That's a hypothetical way the practical danger might depend on circumstances. It doesn't erase the risk we're given; it makes me want to know how that risk translates into the proposed blanket testing requirement.
There are possible tradeoffs too. What if a crop greatly improves food production? We'd want to consider that benefit alongside environmental costs. And would the proposed tests actually detect the risks that concern us? Testing before planting sounds sensible, but the argument still needs a rule connecting the risk to that requirement.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked to help justify the environmentalist's reasoning. We could imagine support explaining why these risks deserve priority or why testing would help. Above all, watch the action in the conclusion: require thorough safety testing before agricultural production. A rule about what to do after a crop fails a test answers a different question.
Working the answers
- A
This says to withhold a crop once rigorous testing has shown it to be risky. But must the testing happen in the first place? A could be followed while letting untested crops into production. The conclusion requires a check before production, not merely a response to an unfavorable result when a check happens to occur.
- B
This permits untested production where a crop has no potential environmental risk. The environmentalist is concerned about crops that might threaten ecosystems. A rule for a no-risk situation doesn't establish a testing requirement for the situation at issue.
- CCorrect
A crop that might pose environmental risks cannot enter agricultural production until its safety has been thoroughly tested. That is the missing policy connection: possible environmental danger triggers testing before release into production.
The environmentalist has described the relevant risks and concluded that testing must precede use. C connects those ideas directly. It doesn't promise that every test is perfect or that every genetically engineered crop is harmful; the requirement applies before those uncertainties are resolved.
- D
This concerns a crop already in production and says to stop producing it if testing reveals risks. The environmentalist wants testing before production begins. A rule for withdrawing a crop later doesn't establish the need to test it earlier.
- E
This tells us when further testing can stop after rigorous studies find no evidence of risk. It doesn't require the initial testing the environmentalist recommends. Once again, a rule about what follows a test is different from a rule requiring the test.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.