GWD23-14

greyskyblue6

我觉得这题还是主要是削弱原文结论：很有可能是玉米收成好所以棉花今年的收成少。所以B选项正确，如果回答是，则是玉米的原因；如果其他棉花没受到虫灾，则可能是生物工程基因的棉花起的作用。

ciciwenwen

colorful_na 发表于 2007-7-10 10:41
kan

同意。答案B即使yes或no都不能表达程度更差或更好。我认为这道题选项不严谨。如果没自带抗体的棉花产生了广泛的异常的damage又怎样？是比题干中的带抗体但seriously damaged的虫灾更差吗？作者意思是想我们想象更差，但是我觉得牵强。

ciciwenwen

原是道很suck的题。前人已经说了。那我不纠结了

zzloveyibo

EmilyYoung90 发表于 2012-1-24 14:47
这道题OG给了很清晰的解答啊。虫子也没有抗药性并不知道， 因为用的是not necessarily developing resistan ...

这个解释其实还可以

attforfun

yogaII 发表于 2006-10-14 03:13
Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of ...

感謝分享

fan6chen

wizwiz 发表于 2011-9-27 17:33
逻辑链：1、Cotton可以杀虫 2、然后，Cotton今年被吃得很惨 3、可是虫并木有抗药性为神马会被吃得很惨呢？ ...

同意！               

cheermeng

依本人拙见，此题绝非烂题，反而提供给考生一种新的思路。

题目要求选出一个一针见血的问题来判断（evaluate）作者的命题（argument）— The damage is not necessarily due to bullworm's resistance but corn's planting. 识别此命题是解题的第一步。

If damage is due to corn's resistance, then bioengineered cottons would suffer more seriously than privious year, and the non-bioengineered cotton would suffer as seriously as before (this result means corn planting have no effect on non-bioengineer cotton).

On the other hand, if damage is due to corn planting, then both bioenginner and non-bio cotton would suffer more serious damage than before.

Therefore, whether non-bio suffered unsually is a key answer necessary to elvaluate the question.

resistance------>non-bio suffer as seriously as before(usual suffer)

Corn planting--->non-bio suffer more seriously than before(unusual suffer)

yangmuhua89757

wizwiz 发表于 2011-9-27 17:33
逻辑链：1、Cotton可以杀虫 2、然后，Cotton今年被吃得很惨 3、可是虫并木有抗药性为神马会被吃得很惨呢？ ...

同意！               

晓嘉听话

yogaII 发表于 2006-10-14 03:13
Plantings of cotton bioengineered to produce its own insecticide against bollworms, a major cause of ...

我总觉得这种 看到选项里看似scope之外的词汇就排除答案不是很靠谱的做法  很多题目答案写的很隐晦或者绕点弯 这样很快排除就会排除点那样的答案，，，，

LaDuDu

ron的解释可以帮助理解https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/really-tough-cr-problem-bio-engineered-cotton-t15587-15.html

basically, there are two possibilities:
1/ there are way more bollworms than usual. they're just as vulnerable to the insecticide as they've always been... but there are just zillions and zillions of them now.
2/ the number of bollworms is the same as always, but the bollworms are now immune to the insecticide.

the argument thinks it's #1.

choice (b) is relevant because it will distinguish between these possibilities.
if there's more damage to the non-insecticidal plants than usual, then there must be more bollworms (possibility #1), because nothing else could explain that additional damage.
if there isn't, then there are the same number of bollworms as usual. in that case, the bollworms must be becoming more robust against the insecticide (possibility #2).