GMATGuruNY wrote:

peter456 wrote:Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world"s important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soyabeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year"s soyabean crop was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenom is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soyabeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soyabean prices to the weather phenomenom?

(A)Last year"s harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenom
(B)Most countries that produce soyabeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soyabeans last year
(C)The world price of soyabeans also rose several times years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance
(D)Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed
(E)Prior to last year, soyabean prices had been falling for several years

Premise: Despite a disruption of weather patterns, the soybean crop increased.
Conclusion: The disruption of weather patterns is responsible for an increase in the price of soybeans.

The correct answer choice must explain how the disruption of weather patterns has led to an increase in the price of soybeans, despite an increase in the soybean crop.
Answer choice A does just what we need:
Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenon.
Implication:
A weather-related lack of anchovies has driven up the price of soybeans, which -- according to the prompt -- is an important source of protein for livestock.

The correct answer is A.

Mo2men wrote:Hi Mitch,

Why D is wrong? Does it weaken the argument?Does it serve as alternate cause?

Thakns

peter456 wrote:GmatGuru,
Your 2 cents pls on why C is wrong

Thanks

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

Marty Murray wrote:What you are saying is not really right, for two reasons.

One reason is that the answers to any well constructed CR question will not contradict facts stated in the prompt. So seeking to eliminate an answer choice by using what seems to be a contradiction between that answer choice and a prompt is not a productive way to train for the GMAT.

Marty Murray wrote:The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soyabeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soyabean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soyabeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soyabeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soyabeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soyabean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soyabeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:What you are saying is not really right, for two reasons.

One reason is that the answers to any well constructed CR question will not contradict facts stated in the prompt. So seeking to eliminate an answer choice by using what seems to be a contradiction between that answer choice and a prompt is not a productive way to train for the GMAT.

Marty - well, I get your point in RED, but I've witnessed a number of instances in which the INCORRECT choice of an Official CR contradicts (or AT LEAST weakens) a PREMISE given in the argument. Now,as we know that the PREMISE given in the argument, can't be WEAKENED or CONTRADICTED, so isn't it logical to accept that answer choice as an INCORRECT option under such circumstances ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soyabeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soyabean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soyabeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soyabeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soyabeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soyabean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soyabeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

I don't get this.

Let's say, X happened for a number of scenarios OTHER THAN B -- so, the phrase OTHER THAN clearly indicates that X didn't happen in case of scenario B. How this interpretation could be wrong ?

Could you please help ?