On average, plowed land erodes away at slightly more than 1 millimeter per year, while new soil builds up at about 0.2 millimeters per year. As a result, continually cultivated soil will become exhausted in the space of several hundred years,
unless no-till agriculture is practiced. No-till agriculture is a method in which crop stubble remains in place and a special drill inserts the seeds into the soil. However, only about 16 percent of cultivated areas in the United States use this method.
Which of the following is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of farming technology has made no-till agriculture available to wealthy farmers, such methods are financially impractical for many American farmers.
(B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually ! nd other ways of getting agricultural products.
(C) Agricultural industries that do not require plowing - such as dairy or chicken farms - are not affected by topsoil erosion.
(D) If 5 out of 6 of all American farms were to practice no-till agriculture, the United States would produce enough agricultural products to meet domestic demand for several hundred years.
(E) Hydroponic farming (farming without soil) would solve the United States' land erosion problem.
OA B
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Veritas Session - land erodes
-
PurpleReign
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:07 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- GMAT Score:730
Conclusion: continually cultivated soil will become exhausted in the space of several hundred years,
unless no-till agriculture is practiced and only 16% of cultivated areas in the US utilize this method.
Background info:
On average, plowed land erodes away at slightly more than 1 millimeter per year, while new soil builds up at about 0.2 millimeters per year.
No-till agriculture is a method in which crop stubble remains in place and a special drill inserts the seeds into the soil.
My process of elimination:
A) Although the advance of farming technology has made no-till agriculture available to wealthy farmers, such methods are financially impractical for many American farmers.
This was out of scope. So I eliminated it.
(B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually find other ways of getting agricultural products.
Within scope, so I kept it.
(C) Agricultural industries that do not require plowing - such as dairy or chicken farms - are not affected by topsoil erosion.
Way outside of scope, and you can't really infer this from the passage as we don't have any info on how dairy or chicken farms run. They may very well be effected by topsoil erosion. Eliminated.
(D) If 5 out of 6 of all American farms were to practice no-till agriculture, the United States would produce enough agricultural products to meet domestic demand for several hundred years.
Not too wildly out of scope so I kept it after my initial read through.
(E) Hydroponic farming (farming without soil) would solve the United States’ land erosion problem.
Hydroponic farming is mentioned anywhere in the passage.
After getting down to B and D, I ultimately went with B. D made a claim based on specific figures that could not be substantiated by the passage. So B imo best answered the question. The conclusion also says that within several hundred years the soil would be exhausted, and B uses the word eventually which connotes that it would take some time before the soil is exhausted. Possibly a stretch, but it was an interesting word choice.
unless no-till agriculture is practiced and only 16% of cultivated areas in the US utilize this method.
Background info:
On average, plowed land erodes away at slightly more than 1 millimeter per year, while new soil builds up at about 0.2 millimeters per year.
No-till agriculture is a method in which crop stubble remains in place and a special drill inserts the seeds into the soil.
My process of elimination:
A) Although the advance of farming technology has made no-till agriculture available to wealthy farmers, such methods are financially impractical for many American farmers.
This was out of scope. So I eliminated it.
(B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually find other ways of getting agricultural products.
Within scope, so I kept it.
(C) Agricultural industries that do not require plowing - such as dairy or chicken farms - are not affected by topsoil erosion.
Way outside of scope, and you can't really infer this from the passage as we don't have any info on how dairy or chicken farms run. They may very well be effected by topsoil erosion. Eliminated.
(D) If 5 out of 6 of all American farms were to practice no-till agriculture, the United States would produce enough agricultural products to meet domestic demand for several hundred years.
Not too wildly out of scope so I kept it after my initial read through.
(E) Hydroponic farming (farming without soil) would solve the United States’ land erosion problem.
Hydroponic farming is mentioned anywhere in the passage.
After getting down to B and D, I ultimately went with B. D made a claim based on specific figures that could not be substantiated by the passage. So B imo best answered the question. The conclusion also says that within several hundred years the soil would be exhausted, and B uses the word eventually which connotes that it would take some time before the soil is exhausted. Possibly a stretch, but it was an interesting word choice.
-
debmalya_dutta
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
reply2spg wrote:On average, plowed land erodes away at slightly more than 1 millimeter per year, while new soil builds up at about 0.2 millimeters per year. As a result, continually cultivated soil will become exhausted in the space of several hundred years,
unless no-till agriculture is practiced. No-till agriculture is a method in which crop stubble remains in place and a special drill inserts the seeds into the soil. However, only about 16 percent of cultivated areas in the United States use this method.
Which of the following is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of farming technology has made no-till agriculture available to wealthy farmers, such methods are financially impractical for many American farmers. (no mention of no-till agriculture being only available to wealthy farmer has been made in stimulus)
(B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually ! nd other ways of getting agricultural products. (now a combination of regular agriculture and no-till agriculture is able to meet the demands..However, no till agriculture consists of 16% ...So, when the remainder 84% which is under regular agriculture method looses the fertile soil, there will be a shortage of agriculture products unless more of the 84% of the land is moved under no-till agriculture..This is completely supported by the passage)
(C) Agricultural industries that do not require plowing - such as dairy or chicken farms - are not affected by topsoil erosion.(no mention of this has been made in the stimulus)
(D) If 5 out of 6 of all American farms were to practice no-till agriculture, the United States would produce enough agricultural products to meet domestic demand for several hundred years. (no mention of this has been made in the stimulus)
(E) Hydroponic farming (farming without soil) would solve the United States' land erosion problem. (again , no mention of this has been made in the stimulus)
OA B
-
Brian@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
- Location: Malibu, CA
- Thanked: 716 times
- Followed by:255 members
- GMAT Score:750
Hey paes,
I think you're right with what you wrote...but in doing so you omitted what is probably the most important part of answer choice B.
The correct answer in Inference ("find the conclusion") questions MUST BE TRUE. One way that the GMAT can accomplish this logical certainty is by offering an if/then statement that involves complementary events (one of them must happen).
Consider this example:
"If I apply to Harvard Business School and am not rejected or waitlisted, I must be admitted to HBS."
This sentence does not simply say "I must be admitted to HBS" (as lovely a sentiment as that would be). It qualifies it by saying "unless the other two possible outcomes happen, the third will". That statement, then, must be true - if only three things can happen, and the statement qualifies the other two, then it's true.
Answer choice B in this sentence does essentially the same thing:
If the U.S. does not find ways to replenish the soil (which we know from the passage is eroding faster than it builds up) it must eventually find new ways of getting agricultural products.
That essentially says: the soil is eroding faster than it builds up, so unless we can reverse that trend, the soil will be gone eventually and the current soil-based methods of agriculture will no longer work.
That's true.
When an answer must be true, look for sentences that are all-encompassing like this one and therefore ensure their own logical certainty. For another good example, you may want to view this post:
Question: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... nd-algebra
Solution: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... d-geometry[/list]
I think you're right with what you wrote...but in doing so you omitted what is probably the most important part of answer choice B.
The correct answer in Inference ("find the conclusion") questions MUST BE TRUE. One way that the GMAT can accomplish this logical certainty is by offering an if/then statement that involves complementary events (one of them must happen).
Consider this example:
"If I apply to Harvard Business School and am not rejected or waitlisted, I must be admitted to HBS."
This sentence does not simply say "I must be admitted to HBS" (as lovely a sentiment as that would be). It qualifies it by saying "unless the other two possible outcomes happen, the third will". That statement, then, must be true - if only three things can happen, and the statement qualifies the other two, then it's true.
Answer choice B in this sentence does essentially the same thing:
If the U.S. does not find ways to replenish the soil (which we know from the passage is eroding faster than it builds up) it must eventually find new ways of getting agricultural products.
That essentially says: the soil is eroding faster than it builds up, so unless we can reverse that trend, the soil will be gone eventually and the current soil-based methods of agriculture will no longer work.
That's true.
When an answer must be true, look for sentences that are all-encompassing like this one and therefore ensure their own logical certainty. For another good example, you may want to view this post:
Question: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... nd-algebra
Solution: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... d-geometry[/list]
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
Thanks Brian.
But somehow I am still not fully convinced.
Based on your argument, the following statement can also be a answer choice :
B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually going to face a big problem for agricultural products.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
But somehow I am still not fully convinced.
Based on your argument, the following statement can also be a answer choice :
B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually going to face a big problem for agricultural products.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
Brian@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
- Location: Malibu, CA
- Thanked: 716 times
- Followed by:255 members
- GMAT Score:750
Hey Paes,
Yes, your proposed answer choice would work, too - it has that same qualifier in it (If x doesn't happen, (100% - x) will happen), so that would be a good answer choice, as well.
Cheers,
Brian
Yes, your proposed answer choice would work, too - it has that same qualifier in it (If x doesn't happen, (100% - x) will happen), so that would be a good answer choice, as well.
Cheers,
Brian
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep
Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
-
paes
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:1 members
Thanks Brian.Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey Paes,
Yes, your proposed answer choice would work, too - it has that same qualifier in it (If x doesn't happen, (100% - x) will happen), so that would be a good answer choice, as well.
Cheers,
Brian
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Hi Brian,Please help me clear a doubtBrian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey Paes,
Yes, your proposed answer choice would work, too - it has that same qualifier in it (If x doesn't happen, (100% - x) will happen), so that would be a good answer choice, as well.
Cheers,
Brian
X will happen , unless y happens.
Can i interpret it as " If Y happens, X will not happen"
Is there a possibility that "If happens, X may or may not happen"
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
I'll jump in on this one because you are asking a question that is a perfect fit for some formal logic -- not really necessary on the GMAT, but helpful to answer your question.
What you are asking is this: given the truth of the statement "X will happen, unless Y happens" is it also true to say, "If Y happens, X will not happen" or is there some possibility that the two will happen together?
I like to interpret these statements by defying the unless part. If you told me "You will not get any dessert unless you clean your room" I would defy the unless and so "okay, what if I do not clean my room?" The answer is right there - no dessert.
So in your example, I would start by saying "If Y happens, X does not happen." So no there is no possibility that the two will happen together.
Your statement is different than the standard type of statement, as you can see my example does not guarantee that anybody gets dessert, it only says that if the room is not clean = no dessert. I think that the way you have worded your statement, if Y does not happen it seems that X will happen. As in, "we will paint the barn, unless it snows. In this case, if it does not snow we will be painting that barn."
Does that help?
What you are asking is this: given the truth of the statement "X will happen, unless Y happens" is it also true to say, "If Y happens, X will not happen" or is there some possibility that the two will happen together?
I like to interpret these statements by defying the unless part. If you told me "You will not get any dessert unless you clean your room" I would defy the unless and so "okay, what if I do not clean my room?" The answer is right there - no dessert.
So in your example, I would start by saying "If Y happens, X does not happen." So no there is no possibility that the two will happen together.
Your statement is different than the standard type of statement, as you can see my example does not guarantee that anybody gets dessert, it only says that if the room is not clean = no dessert. I think that the way you have worded your statement, if Y does not happen it seems that X will happen. As in, "we will paint the barn, unless it snows. In this case, if it does not snow we will be painting that barn."
Does that help?
-
ManKuts123
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:14 am
Answer is B
A) - Comparison with wealthy farmers is not the scope of the argument
E) - Statement is out of scope and not suppored in the arguments , extreme too
C) - There is no mention of Non Agricultural industries
Zeros to D and B)
D) - Statement provides info on how US domestic demands can be met - This is not the topic of discussion
Answer B)
A) - Comparison with wealthy farmers is not the scope of the argument
E) - Statement is out of scope and not suppored in the arguments , extreme too
C) - There is no mention of Non Agricultural industries
Zeros to D and B)
D) - Statement provides info on how US domestic demands can be met - This is not the topic of discussion
Answer B)
-
krishnakumar.ks
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:22 am
- Thanked: 4 times
Lets try to solve this question in a slightly different perspective (similar to kaplan strategy).
The assumption here is that if the no-till method is not adopted, soil will erode (...unless no-till agriculture is practiced).
So, we should select an answer that supports this assumption. If we try to prephrase our assumption, it may look like : No-till method is the ultimate and the only solution and ignoring it will result in soil exhaustion. Then how do we produce agricultural products in such case? We need to look out for other ways (as we cannot survive without food ).
None of the options, except B is apt.
Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks
Krishna.
The assumption here is that if the no-till method is not adopted, soil will erode (...unless no-till agriculture is practiced).
So, we should select an answer that supports this assumption. If we try to prephrase our assumption, it may look like : No-till method is the ultimate and the only solution and ignoring it will result in soil exhaustion. Then how do we produce agricultural products in such case? We need to look out for other ways (as we cannot survive without food ).
None of the options, except B is apt.
Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks
Krishna.
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
I never want to tell anyone that the way that they are looking at something is wrong. Even "experts" should respect that people have ways of doing things - and you definitely have hit upon the correct answer.
But this is an inference question...so I would advocate that it is not efficient to try and "pre-phrase" your answer here. Certainly on a strengthen or a weaken question you would want to anticipate the answer. But there are so many possible answers for an inference question. It is more reliable to use process of elimination as "purplereign" and others did above.
In particular you want to watch for things that are out of scope and predictions. These can be quickly eliminated on an inference question.
But this is an inference question...so I would advocate that it is not efficient to try and "pre-phrase" your answer here. Certainly on a strengthen or a weaken question you would want to anticipate the answer. But there are so many possible answers for an inference question. It is more reliable to use process of elimination as "purplereign" and others did above.
In particular you want to watch for things that are out of scope and predictions. These can be quickly eliminated on an inference question.
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
isnt veritas holding gmat challenges any more .Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey paes,
I think you're right with what you wrote...but in doing so you omitted what is probably the most important part of answer choice B.
The correct answer in Inference ("find the conclusion") questions MUST BE TRUE. One way that the GMAT can accomplish this logical certainty is by offering an if/then statement that involves complementary events (one of them must happen).
Consider this example:
"If I apply to Harvard Business School and am not rejected or waitlisted, I must be admitted to HBS."
This sentence does not simply say "I must be admitted to HBS" (as lovely a sentiment as that would be). It qualifies it by saying "unless the other two possible outcomes happen, the third will". That statement, then, must be true - if only three things can happen, and the statement qualifies the other two, then it's true.
Answer choice B in this sentence does essentially the same thing:
If the U.S. does not find ways to replenish the soil (which we know from the passage is eroding faster than it builds up) it must eventually find new ways of getting agricultural products.
That essentially says: the soil is eroding faster than it builds up, so unless we can reverse that trend, the soil will be gone eventually and the current soil-based methods of agriculture will no longer work.
That's true.
When an answer must be true, look for sentences that are all-encompassing like this one and therefore ensure their own logical certainty. For another good example, you may want to view this post:
Question: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... nd-algebra
Solution: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/06/ ... d-geometry[/list]
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Must be True=> Correct answer can always be proven by ONLY referring to FACTS in stimulus.
using POE
A) Wealth and Finance(financially impractical) --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
B) Not sure/May be --> Revisit
C) dairy or chicken farms are not affected --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
D) If 5/6 American farms... practice no-till..enough..100yrs demand -->Can NOT be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
(remember: although a statement can be true on its own, It MUST BE be true based ONLY on given Stimulus )
E) Hydroponic farming would solve...land erosion problem --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
I opted for B at this point(2 mins:45 secs)as other choices were eliminated.
using POE
A) Wealth and Finance(financially impractical) --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
B) Not sure/May be --> Revisit
C) dairy or chicken farms are not affected --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
D) If 5/6 American farms... practice no-till..enough..100yrs demand -->Can NOT be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
(remember: although a statement can be true on its own, It MUST BE be true based ONLY on given Stimulus )
E) Hydroponic farming would solve...land erosion problem --> Can not be proved from Stimulus =>OUT
I opted for B at this point(2 mins:45 secs)as other choices were eliminated.
reply2spg wrote:On average, plowed land erodes away at slightly more than 1 millimeter per year, while new soil builds up at about 0.2 millimeters per year. As a result, continually cultivated soil will become exhausted in the space of several hundred years,
unless no-till agriculture is practiced. No-till agriculture is a method in which crop stubble remains in place and a special drill inserts the seeds into the soil. However, only about 16 percent of cultivated areas in the United States use this method.
Which of the following is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of farming technology has made no-till agriculture available to wealthy farmers, such methods are financially impractical for many American farmers.
(B) If the United States does not utilize means that replenish or reuse exhausted soil, it must eventually ! nd other ways of getting agricultural products.
(C) Agricultural industries that do not require plowing - such as dairy or chicken farms - are not affected by topsoil erosion.
(D) If 5 out of 6 of all American farms were to practice no-till agriculture, the United States would produce enough agricultural products to meet domestic demand for several hundred years.
(E) Hydroponic farming (farming without soil) would solve the United States' land erosion problem.
OA B
