What is the author's main purpose?
The debate about genetically modified crops is often conducted as if there were one question. In fact there are several, and they should not be run together. Whether a particular modified crop is safe to eat is an empirical matter, and the answer is usually yes after proper testing. Whether the crop harms the environment, for example by encouraging heavy use of herbicides, is a separate empirical matter, and the answer varies from crop to crop. Whether a few companies should own the seeds on which farmers depend is a question about law and economics. Campaigners who answer the third question with arguments about the first are not helping anyone, and nor are enthusiasts who treat evidence on safety as if it settled the other two.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. To show that several distinct questions about modified crops are wrongly run together
- Step 1: The passage separates safety, environmental effect and ownership.
- Step 2: It criticises both camps for using one answer to settle another question.
Answer
To show that several distinct questions about modified crops are wrongly run together.
Why not the others: The author does not argue for a particular answer to any of the three questions.
Practise more Food and agriculture.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.