Ian Stewart wrote:This is quite a tricky question, since 2) is certainly tempting. Still, it's important to read the information provided carefully; we know that with rising prosperity there is "a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat" in Baurisia. It may be that everyone in Baurisia, rich or poor, eats the same amount of meat, but that if everyone had more money, they would all eat more meat. Indeed, the stem implies that people will eat more meat if they have more money - it doesn't matter how this meat eating is distributed among rich and poor.

4) is correct - the stem seems to assume that Baurisia's only option is to import grain. There is an alternative ignored in the question- import meat. If that's more economical, it seems plausible to think that's what they will do.

Ian Stewart wrote:

bluementor wrote: I don't understand why are we considering which of the two (meat or grain) is more economical? There is nothing indicated in the passage concerning Baurisia being economical.

That the expense of importing grain goes unmentioned in the passage is not important here. We have a passage with this structure:

"Because of certain circumstances, Barusia will choose to do Plan A."

It certainly weakens the conclusion if the following is true:

"Plan B achieves the same goals as Plan A, and there are reasons Barusia will probably prefer Plan B".

That's what answer D says, essentially.

Ian Stewart wrote:

aj5105 wrote: Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon likely to become an importer of grain.

doesn't the bold part kill the idea that something else can be imported?

I am not questioning the OA here. I am just trying to understand what part of the argument should hint me in selecting (D)?

If they don't need to make more meat themselves, then they won't need more grain. They have (at least) two options:

-they can try to make more meat, which means they will need more grain, and since they can't grow more grain, they would need to import grain;

-or they can keep their own meat production the same, meaning they won't need any more grain, and import meat to meet demand.

The argument in the question stem is a 'tunnel vision' kind of argument: it draws a conclusion about a likely course of action without considering alternatives that might achieve the same goals.