+0
Hi

A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants if it is diluted at least to ten parts water to one part fungicide. Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants, without entailing any risk of harm to the other garden plants.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. There is no alternative method to application of fungicide for eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants without harming other garden plants.

B. When the fungicide is sufficiently diluted, it does not pose any harm to people, animals, or beneficial garden insects.

C. Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection affecting rose plants.

D. There are no antidotes available if the fungicide is not sufficiently diluted inadvertently.

E. The effectiveness of the fungicide on powedery mildew does not depend on its concentration levels greater than one part in ten parts of water.

Thanks
1 2 3
Comments  
Tell us what you think the answer is first anon.
Hint: Not liking the response you got the first time you post something is not a good reason to post it again. You'll note that Nona gave you the exact same response you got twice the first time you posted.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi,

I answered Nona's question.

To tell you the truth, I do not think any of the options works.

What is your concept on this?

Thanks
I think the answer is quite clear, actually. Why don't you say what you think it is wrong with each one.
Hi again

Not A, because the text does not say this is the only means of eradicating the virus.

B? No way. No harm to people? Where is it in the text?

Not C - It is not inferable that there is no other fungus adversely affecting rose plants.

D? No mention of antidotes in the text.

E? Greater concentration than 1/10 is deadly but no mildew. Hmm. E is true but it is not what the argument depends on, IMO.

BTW, is it the argument:

"Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants, without entailing any risk of harm to the other garden plants"?

Thanks
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I would say that if there WERE other means of eradicating the powerdy mildew in a way that didn't harm the other plants, there would be no need for this "announcement." You would say "Who cares? I can use Mildew-b-Gone, and the mildew will be gone and my other plants will be safe."

So for this to be noteworthy, there must not be another method that is both effective on this mildew AND not harmful to the other plants.
Interesting. Thanks.

The last thing I would think of.
If C is the answer

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Where is the dependance?

Thanks.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more