CAT 2018 Slot 2 — VARC Question 30
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
A Japanese government panel announced that it recommends regulating only genetically modified organisms that have had foreign genes permanently introduced into their genomes and not those whose endogenous genes have been edited. The only stipulation is that researchers and businesses will have to register their modifications to plants or animals with the government, with the exception of microbes cultured in contained environments. Reactions to the decision are mixed. While lauding the potential benefits of genome editing, an editorial opposes acrossthe-board permission. Unforeseen risks in gene editing cannot be ruled out. All genetically modified products must go through the same safety and labeling processes regardless of method.
Answer & solution
- A
A government panel in Japan says transgenic modification and genome editing are not the same.
- B
Creating categories within genetically modified products in terms of transgenic modification and genome editing advances science but defies laws.
Exempting from regulations the editing of endogenous genes is not desirable as this procedure might be risk-prone.
- D
Excepting microbes cultured in contained environments from the regulations of genome editing is premature.
Easy
Para-summary: nail the author's central position, then reject options that distort, add outside ideas, or omit the key point. The passage reports a Japanese panel's decision to regulate only transgenic GMOs (foreign genes) and exempt gene-edited (endogenous) ones; the author then sides with the editorial that opposes the exemption because unforeseen risks remain. The summary must carry that critical, cautionary verdict.
Locate the author's stance. The decision is "mixed", but the passage closes by endorsing the editorial line: gene editing carries unforeseen risks, so "all genetically modified products must go through the same safety and labeling processes regardless of method." The author's point is that exempting edited (endogenous) genes from regulation is unwise because it may be risky.
Option 1 — distortion. "Transgenic modification and genome editing are not the same" is a factual sub-detail, not the author's position; the passage treats both as genetically modified products that should face equal scrutiny. It misses the cautionary verdict. Reject.
Option 2 — off-target. "Advances science but defies laws" introduces a legality theme the passage never raises and drops the risk/regulation argument entirely. Add + omit. Reject.
Option 3 — match. "Exempting from regulations the editing of endogenous genes is not desirable as this procedure might be risk-prone" captures exactly the author's verdict: the exemption is undesirable because of unforeseen risk. Retain.
Option 4 — incomplete. It says the exemption of contained microbes is "premature" but gives no reason — and the passage's central thrust is the risk-based objection to exempting edited genes broadly, not the narrow microbe carve-out. It omits the crucial "why". Reject.
Correct answer: Option 3 — exempting endogenous-gene editing from regulation is undesirable because it may be risk-prone.