Explanation
Reading the question: this question, like Auto Body and
Expert Virus, asks us for a logical continuation of the prompt. Our completion
must be in line with both the facts and the relevant opinions in the prompt.
Creating a filter: we pay special attention to the
emotionally charged phrases "perfect case" and "he should consider." The
"perfect case" describes the viewpoint of the farmer, while "he should
consider" describes the viewpoint not of the farmer, but of the author of the
paragraph. From those two fragments alone, we can infer that what goes in the
blank will be a reason the new technique might not work or be so good for this
farmer. Can we be more specific? Indeed: the author says "there are risks." So
the correct answer will probably highlight a risk that the farmer may have
overlooked.
Applying the filter: choice (A) gives a risk, though it is
not exactly a continuation of the passage, since it brings in new concepts,
prices and profit. Choice (B) contradicts the data we have been given, which tells
us that the technique will do what it's designed to do. Choice (C) describes a
new risk, so it passes the filter. Choice (D), like (B), contradicts data we
are given to work with, namely, that the farmer considers his plot ideal.
Choice (E) describes a risk of this new technique, so it passes the filter.
Logical proof: we are down to choices (C) and (E). Can we
establish that one is better? Yes: the author says that "complete extermination might bring new risks." Choice (E) is
specifically a risk of complete
extermination, whereas (C) is not. When
you're trying to decide between two answer choices, look for a critical detail
that makes one objectively superior to the other. The correct answer is
(E).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.