GortLand Repeat CR

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

GortLand Repeat CR

by mundasingh123 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:16 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.
Why not B ?
The stimulus mentions an increase in per capita consumption , not total consumption.
EDIT :The following is what I get when i apply the Assumption Denial Test to B ,
If the population has decreased then the increase in total meat consumption may not turn out to be much .
Taking this into consideration , in the future too , the total meat consumption may not increase . Doesnt this line of thought weaken the argument
Last edited by mundasingh123 on Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by sandy217 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:47 am
Its E.
If the population has decreased then the increase in total meat consumption may not turn out to be much .
How did you come to above conclusion? Option B says Population has remained relatively same. it never said population decreased.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:56 am
sandy217 wrote:Its E.
If the population has decreased then the increase in total meat consumption may not turn out to be much .
How did you come to above conclusion? Option B says Population has remained relatively same. it never said population decreased.
I edited my post . I used the Assumption denial test
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:44 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by sandy217 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:22 am
The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing
prosperity.

Denial B:

The population of Gortland has not remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing
prosperity.

What if it increases? it will not break the conclusion.
If it decreases. It will break the conclusion

Not very clear .

Option E is perfect fit with denial test as well.
Denial E:
People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will radically decrease their consumption of grain.

Now this breaks conclusion very well.