Critical Reasoning

With the subject of this thread in mind, see whether you get this one right.

Rising global temperatures have led to ecological issues that have affected the growth of the staple crop, madinga, in Guadelaga. As this process has continued, the output of madinga in Guadelaga has decreased. If temperatures continue to increase, the people of Guadelaga will soon have to change their diets, as they will no longer have access to sufficient madinga.

The answer to which of the following would be the least useful in assessing the validity of the above conclusion?

(A) Are there certain strains of madinga that are not currently commonly grown in Guadelaga and that would thrive in the new conditions?

(B) Are there places other than Guadelaga where madinga can be grown and where temperatures can be expected to remain similar to or lower than temperatures currently seen in Guadelaga?

(C) If new measures being adopted were to cause global temperatures to stabilize near current levels, would the size of Guadelaga's madinga crop stabilize near current levels?

(D) Would using relatively complex and currently rarely used biodiverse farming methods ameliorate the effects of higher temperatures on the ecology that supports the growth of madinga?

(E) To what degree does Guadelaga's current madinga crop exceed the dietary consumption of madinga by the people of Guadelaga?

OA below.

The key to getting this one right is noticing EXACTLY what the conclusion is.

Many people are tempted by answer B, but what B says is somewhat relevant to what's discussed in the prompt.

C however misses the point.

The conclusion is about what will happen if temperatures continue to rise, while C is about what will happen if temperatures stabilize.

So the correct answer is C.

Option E talks about " current madinga crop exceed the dietary consumption of madinga". It will be least required to assess the argument IMO.

Please explain.

eitijan wrote:Option E talks about " current madinga crop exceed the dietary consumption of madinga". It will be least required to assess the argument IMO.

Please explain.

The following is the conclusion of the argument.

"If temperatures continue to increase, the people of Guadelaga will soon have to change their diets, as they will no longer have access to sufficient madinga."

If the current crop is equal to the dietary consumption of madinga, meaning the quantity of madinga that people eat, then any reduction in the crop will result in there not being enough madinga for maintaining the current dietary consumption.

If the current crop significantly exceeds the dietary consumption, then possibly even with a reduction in the crop there will be madinga sufficient for maintaining the current dietary consumption.

So the degree to which the madinga crop exceeds current dietary consumption could be a factor affecting the validity of the conclusion.

The answer to C, however, definitely has no bearing on the conclusion. The conclusion is that IF TEMPERATURES CONTINUE TO INCREASE, x will happen, whereas C asks about what would happen IF TEMPERATURES WERE TO NOT CONTINUE TO INCREASE.