Scientists have made genetic modifications to cotton to increase its resistance to insect pests. According to farmer’s report, the amount of insecticide needed per acre was only slightly higher for those who tried the modified seed than for those who did not. Therefore, since the modified seed costs more than ordinary seed without producing yields of higher market value, switching to the modified seed would be unlikely to benefit most cotton farmers economically.
Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
D: Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed
E: Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide.
[Answer]:
The given answer is D. But I could not see the relationship between the total acres and the conclusion in question. It is the per acre usage that is compared in the problem, and if I am right, this has little relationship with the total acre of plantation.
I chose E, because, I think, we should not only compare the farmers that used the modified seed with those that didn’t, but also compare the farmers that used the modified seed in the chronicle perspective. If these farmers were those that formerly had to use exceptionally large amount of insecticide, through switching to the modified seed, they bettered off, although their reduced usage of insecticide was only slightly lower than those farmers using the ordinary seed. In this light, we can have a better evaluation of the conclusion in question.
I appreciate your comments in advance [em01] | 
