Which statement would the author be most likely to accept?
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. A crop could be safe to eat and still raise legitimate objections about ownership of its seeds
- Step 1: The passage treats safety and ownership as separate questions.
- Step 2: So a crop can pass one and still raise the other.
Answer
A crop could be safe to eat and still raise legitimate objections about ownership of its seeds.
Why not the others: A safe crop can still raise objections, harm to the environment is a separate matter from safety to eat, ownership is not only about safety, and environmental effects differ from health effects.
Practise more Food and agriculture.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.