Scientists have made genetic modifications to cotton to increase its resistance to insect pests. According to farmers’ reports, the amount of insecticide needed per acre to control insect pests was only slightly lower 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 useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
- Whether farmers who tried the modified cotton seed had ever tried growing other crops from genetically modified seed
- Whether the insecticides typically used on ordinary cotton tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops
- Whether for most farmers who grow cotton it is their primary crop
- Whether the farmers who have tried the modified seed planted as many acres of cotton, on average, as farmers using the ordinary seed did
- Whether most of the farmers who tried the modified seed did so because they had previously had to use exceptionally large quantities of insecticide
The anwser is D, but I chose E. I could not see the logical connection between the question and choice D, instead, I saw E was more reasonable. Anyone please give me a hint of your reasoning?
Thanks in advance | 
