-
avik.ch
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:15 am
- Thanked: 149 times
- Followed by:32 members
- GMAT Score:760
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later.
The argument is valid only if,
a. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
b. irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
c. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
d. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
e. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time
The OA is B. I think its D.
Can someone please point out why D is wrong and the logic behind this.
The argument is valid only if,
a. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
b. irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
c. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
d. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
e. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time
The OA is B. I think its D.
Can someone please point out why D is wrong and the logic behind this.
