Critical Reasoning

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

Kaplan CAT3, OA later..I chose D and got it wrong, can someone justify this pls

i narrowed down to B and D.
i eliminated D because the argument says abt avoiding severe inflation . This cannot infer to normal harvest(a strong arg)
am i correct?

outreach wrote:i narrowed down to B and D.
i eliminated D because the argument says abt avoiding severe inflation . This cannot infer to normal harvest(a strong arg)
am i correct?

Agree to your reasoning. I picked B as well.

Very much right both of you..thanks..OA : B

yes irrigation is the only way then they have to spent now on irrigation to postpone inflation later

Sorry..bit confused about 'B' & 'D'.

Could someone explain as how 'B' is the correct answer and tips to avoid choosing 'D'?

Cheers

I too went for B but not sure why its B and not D..
ANyone?

me too narrowed it down to B and D...

but if you look more closely, "D" is already implied in the passage...still debatable though...

Hi guys

sorry to start on this post all over again, but i chose A as the answer. Can someone pls tell me why this is wrong?

And also, won't B be eliminated as it is extreme (irrigation is the ONLY way......)

Thanks

Kushal

sumanr84 wrote: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

Kaplan CAT3, OA later..I chose D and got it wrong, can someone justify this pls

In this question you need to pay close attention to the conclusion. B and D both looked good at first, but you need to notice the differences "irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels" "irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased" While they both seem tempting, you need to keep in mind of the conclusion. Not all fields will receive irrigation, only the largest. If you only irrigated those crops, you would still undergo inflation.

thanks rooster.. i did not notice the "largest affected corn fields" part..

good qn. thanks kaushal for not letting it drop off with an in adequate explanation