yup thats true... anyway... i can be pretty sure i wont be seeing this question on the gmat
pls post the answer if anyone finds out the OA and reasons. not sure where this is from.... thanks
Country R - Experts please help
-
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
My pick is B
Playing Devil's advodate here
Though I did not like selecting B , its surely makes more sense than the others. Why do I say this about B? Think the grain board quota will impact the amount of grain that the grain board will buy from the farmers. The quota enforcement by itself does not limit the prices . So, establishing long term contracts which ensure fixed prices does not help the farmer because he will only be able to sell the X amount to the grain board.
The best solution would have been for the farmer to limit his production to X and use the excess land for other purposes after the quota rule has been enforced .
Playing Devil's advodate here
Though I did not like selecting B , its surely makes more sense than the others. Why do I say this about B? Think the grain board quota will impact the amount of grain that the grain board will buy from the farmers. The quota enforcement by itself does not limit the prices . So, establishing long term contracts which ensure fixed prices does not help the farmer because he will only be able to sell the X amount to the grain board. The best solution would have been for the farmer to limit his production to X and use the excess land for other purposes after the quota rule has been enforced .
reply2spg wrote:Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.
Suppose an individual farmer in country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predidcted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?
(A) Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
(B) Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price
(C) Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones
(D) Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it
(E) Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production
[spoiler]I don't have OA for this. But IMO answer is A[/spoiler]
Why I selected A - Farmers are going to get flat percentage. There is a possibility that farmer's profit will go down. If I were farmer, then I would have done cost cutting by retiring those fields, which are less profitable. I simply personalize this argument and arrived at A. Please help me to understand if my logic is correct.
@Deb
-
uwhusky
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
- Thanked: 74 times
- Followed by:4 members
My take on the argument of the grain board at Country R using paraphrase:
"Because the resultant escalating overproduction, in few years, we will have to impose quotas on grain production."
In my opinion, seeking long term contracts will not address the main issue at hand, which is that overproduction will lead to imposed quotas.
E addresses the argument by eliminating the premise, thus the conclusion can no longer hold, and everybody wins.
"Because the resultant escalating overproduction, in few years, we will have to impose quotas on grain production."
In my opinion, seeking long term contracts will not address the main issue at hand, which is that overproduction will lead to imposed quotas.
E addresses the argument by eliminating the premise, thus the conclusion can no longer hold, and everybody wins.
