To determine which statement cannot be validly concluded from the provided information, we need to closely analyze each option using logical reasoning. The core assertion from the NAAS is that without crop protection products, crop yields will drop by more than 50 percent. Let's evaluate each option:
- Option 1: according to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre never drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have been used to control insects, weeds, and diseases.
This statement is a logical contrapositive of the main assertion and can be validly concluded. If not using crop protection causes yields to drop significantly, then yields not dropping suggests usage of the products. - Option 2: in today’s economy any aircraft that cannot be used to apply fertilizer cannot be classified as an aerial applicator.
The text states that all classified aerial applicators do more than apply insecticides today, suggesting this condition is necessary. This statement can be concluded from the information provided. - Option 3: in today’s economy, if an aerial applicator is used, then it will be able to spread seed and to apply fertilizer.
This aligns with the given detail that all modern aerial applicators have multiple capabilities and can be concluded from the text. - Option 4: according to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have not been used to control insects, weeds, and diseases.
This is the statement that cannot be validly concluded. While the NAAS asserts the absence of these products causes a yield drop, it doesn't confirm yields dropping implies the products weren't used, as other factors might be involved.
Thus, the correct answer is the fourth statement: according to the NAAS, if crop yields per acre drop by more than 50 percent, then crop protection products have not been used to control insects, weeds, and diseases.