Gortland meat and grain

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

Gortland meat and grain

by ssgmatter » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:37 am
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as
per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita
consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several
pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income
continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will
soon have to import either grain or meat or both.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease
substantially.
B. The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the
country's years of growing prosperity.
C. The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all
income levels.
D. In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.
E. People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically
decrease their consumption of grain
Best-
Amit
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:47 am
IMO the answer is E.

This must be true for the conclusion to be made. Negate it and test. If people did radically change their grain consumption, would that impact the conclusion? Indeed! If people started to each much less grain and devoted more land to cattle production, could the author make his conclusion?

What is the OA?

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

Jared

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:59 am
sk818020 wrote:IMO the answer is E.

This must be true for the conclusion to be made. Negate it and test. If people did radically change their grain consumption, would that impact the conclusion? Indeed! If people started to each much less grain and devoted more land to cattle production, could the author make his conclusion?

What is the OA?

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

Jared
U nailed it Jared!!
wonderful reasoning....Application of denial test is fantatsic!!

Ok tell me what will u pick if this would have been "strengthen the argument"???
Give me reasoning too

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:17 am
If I had to strengthen the argument I would go with A.

The argument is strengthened if the total acreage alotted to grain and cattle stayed the same. If they stay the same, then production would likely stay the same and this would strengthen the argument that they will have to import. But A only says that they will not decrease the acreage devoted to grain. This leaves open the possibility that they will either leave it the same or increase the acreage. If you leave the acreage the same then based on the argument they will have to import more meat to meet the rising demand. If you increase grain acreage you lose cattle acreage and will need to import more. Either way you would strengthen the conclusion.

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,

Jared

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:30 am
sk818020 wrote:If I had to strengthen the argument I would go with A.

The argument is strengthened if the total acreage alotted to grain and cattle stayed the same. If they stay the same, then production would likely stay the same and this would strengthen the argument that they will have to import. But A only says that they will not decrease the acreage devoted to grain. This leaves open the possibility that they will either leave it the same or increase the acreage. If you leave the acreage the same then based on the argument they will have to import more meat to meet the rising demand. If you increase grain acreage you lose cattle acreage and will need to import more. Either way you would strengthen the conclusion.

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,

Jared
Lovely jared!!
I liked ur explanation and it was the same way i used to write...Thx man!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by ansumania » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:39 am
sk818020 wrote:IMO the answer is E.

This must be true for the conclusion to be made. Negate it and test. If people did radically change their grain consumption, would that impact the conclusion? Indeed! If people started to each much less grain and devoted more land to cattle production, could the author make his conclusion?

What is the OA?

Hope that helps.

Thanks,

Jared
Hi,

Please tell me why B can't be an assumption.
My reasoning:
If we say , ok the population has decreased (denying the statement)-> then there would be surplus grain which could be exchanged for meat- could be an assumption
The population has increased (denying the statement again) - > there would be less grain and meat- couldn't be an assumption , because it doesn't weaken the argument then.
Is this correct reasoning? Pl. comment.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:17 am
ansumania wrote: Hi,

Please tell me why B can't be an assumption.
My reasoning:
If we say , ok the population has decreased (denying the statement)-> then there would be surplus grain which could be exchanged for meat- could be an assumption
The population has increased (denying the statement again) - > there would be less grain and meat- couldn't be an assumption , because it doesn't weaken the argument then.
Is this correct reasoning? Pl. comment.
The denial of statement B is not that the population decreases.

Statement B says the population has been relatively constant over a period of time. The logical opposite of this statement would be to say that the population has not been relatively constant over a period of time. This would mean that, instead of the population staying constant, it would have gone either down or up over the given period of time. Do not let the negative connotations of the word "negate" to lead you to falsely translate the word. This is the reason B is not an assumption. The population increasing would have a different effect on the argument than the population decreasing would. An assumption cannot both weaken and strengthen an argument. It must only strengthen it. Therefore, B is not the answer.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by ansumania » Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:54 am
it makes sense....thanks a lot bud....