Critics: Not so. The farms the academy selected to study were the ones that seemed most likely to be successful in using natural methods. What about the farmers who have tried such methods and failed? Which one of the following is the most adequate evaluation of the logical force of the critics' response? Science Academy study: It has been demonstrated that with natural methods, some well-managed farms are able to reduce the amounts of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide and also of antibiotics they use without necessarily decreasing yields; in some cases yields can be increased. ['The critics demonstrate that natural methods are not suitable for the majority of farmers.', 'The critics show that the result of the study would have been different if twice as many farms had been studied.', 'The issue is only to show that something is possible, so it is not relevant whether the instances studied were representative.', 'Success and failure in farming are rarely due only to luck, because farming is the management of chance occurrences.']