The conclusion here is, "Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture."
The support provided for this conclusion? (1) Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater and (2) pumping seawater into farms near sea levels is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells."
We are being asked to select the answer choice that "most strengthens" the argument so this is a Strengthen Question.
Notice the jump in this argument. The conclusion is about the overall cost-effectiveness of seawater agriculture but the support is only about the cost of pumping water for irrigation.
(E) closes this gap by stating, "Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals."
If pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved, it would strengthen the argument that seawater agriculture near sea-level should be cost-effective because pumping seawater is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
#JWNovember 5, 2019
Sorry for the ignorance but the whole "forage crop for animals" threw me off which is why I did not select that answer choice as well as the part of the answer about "although.." Can you explain what effect, if any, that part of the language in the answer choice has on making your answer choice selection? Thanks.
