Can you post the explanation why A is correct, if you know the explanation.

Thanks

The answer is A.

A - Can be inferred. for argument sake

Brazil
Production - 60
Planted land - 100
Agriculture land - 120

Yield/Planted - 60%
Yield/Agri = 50%

Canada
Production - 160
Planted land - 200
Agriculture land - 400

Yield/Planted - 80%
Yield/Agri = 40%

For planted - Brazil/Canada = 75%
For agriculture - Brazil/Canada = 125%


B - A majority of Canadian agricultural acreage is unplanted. Thiscannot be inferred. We can only infer that > %age of Canadian land is unplanted than that of Brazil land

C - More total acres were unplanted in Canada than in Brazil - Again cannot infer about acres, only %age

D - Brazil had more acres planted than unplanted while Canada has more acres unplanted than planted - Again cannot infer about acres, only %age

E - Brazil produced more total crops than Canada - Cannot infer this

Could you details how you got all these numbers?

The only numbers I can see in the Q is 68% and 115 % ? Please explain.

beeparoo wrote:A ten year comparison between Brazilian and Canadian crops showed that Brazilian yields are 68% of Canadian yields when compared on the basis of per planted acre. However, Brazilian yields are 115% of Canadian yields when measured per agricultural acre.

Based on this information, which of the following can most reliably be inferred about Brazilian and Canadian agriculture over this time period?

++

A - A greater percentage of Canadian agricultural acreage was unplanted than of Brazilian agricultural acreage

B - A majority of Canadian agricultural acreage is unplanted

C - More total acres were unplanted in Canada than in Brazil

D - Brazil had more acres planted than unplanted while Canada has more acres unplanted than planted

E - Brazil produced more total crops than Canada

Source: Kaplan

Answer: A You will need to highlight to see reveal the answer

You don't really need to pay more attention to the numbers than they say. This is not a quant question. Just look at the answer choices and see which ones go too much outside of the scope intended, relate irrelevant information, etc.

A - seems to be the right answer, but we'll move on.

B - The passage is a comparison, nothing is said of individual nations, so eliminate this one.

C - This is certainly a comparison statement. However, it is comparing total acres, whereas the passage talks about two different kinds of acres. Eliminiate it.

D - Same as above. We cannot gather information about total acres from the passage.

E - We're not interested in crops. But, again, this question considers totals, and we cannot gather that from the passage.

Let's come back to A. Consider, most, if not all, answers to inference questions on the GMAT are what I call "flip of a coin" answers. If the passage says heads, then the answer should say that the flip side is tails. For example, the passage says that Brazilian yields, i.e. the crop gathered, is greater per agricultural acre than that of Canada. From this we can infer that a greater percentage (notice not number... not total, but "percentage") of Canada's agricultural acreage was unplanted. If this answer choice said that a greater percentage of Brazil's agricultural acreage was planted, that would also be a good answer. Now, you are probably thinking that this would be repeating what the passage already says. Not so fast! The passage is talking about yields, but the answer choice is talking about land!

Of course we could also say that maybe the two nations are using the same percentage of their agricultural acreage, but one of them is utilizing genetically modified agents in their seed in order to increase the yield per acre, but this would be waaaaay out of the scope, and is not one of the answer choices.

Hope this helps. Also, I just blogged about CR strategy, if anyone is interested.

in my opinion A is the most logical one