BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Rice in Teruvia

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times
by ssgmatter » Tue May 18, 2010 6:46 am
In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the
foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia's
population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly,
therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in
Teruvia.
B. Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the
cultivation of rice.
C. None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.
D. There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not
increase.
E. There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and
domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

I think C is the correct one. Please correct me with some reasons on this one

Thanks!
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Tue May 18, 2010 6:49 am
ssgmatter wrote:In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the
foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia's
population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly,
therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in
Teruvia.
B. Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the
cultivation of rice.
C. None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.
D. There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not
increase.
E. There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and
domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

I think C is the correct one. Please correct me with some reasons on this one

Thanks!
I just realised that C is wrong one here by using the negation logic. Please correct me

If some of the strains of rice are exceptionally high yielding then the arg or the conclusion of will be destroyed So it is out....Does it make sense?
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 11:32 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by amitverma22 » Tue May 18, 2010 7:14 am
Premise: 1) the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand
2) Population of Teruvia is increasing
3) total rice acreage will not be expanded
4) rice yields per acre will not increase appreciably.

Conclusion: Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.

One significant assumption that comes out from above argument is, " The rice consumption of current population and the coming population does not decrease" . Then only Teruvia needs to import rice

[spoiler]A)[/spoiler] states the same assumption in different wording.

IMO, A is the answer.

What is OA ?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:47 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by sakali » Tue May 18, 2010 11:07 am
P1: Teruvia will not grow any more rice than it already does.
P2: Population is expected to increase.

C: Teruvia will need to import rice.

...why? will all the new people also eat rice? "A" addresses that assumption. It says, the rate of consumption will not decrease....if per-capita consumption will not go down, then you will need to import rice.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:08 am
Thanked: 3 times

by bupbebeo » Tue May 18, 2010 8:10 pm
ssgmatter wrote:In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the
foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia's
population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly,
therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in
Teruvia.
B. Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the
cultivation of rice.
C. None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.
D. There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not
increase.
E. There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and
domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

I think C is the correct one. Please correct me with some reasons on this one

Thanks!

I strongly believe that A is correct answer.

if we apply negation method, we can easily see that without A, the conclusion cannot be correct.

if there is a profound trend of decreasing in demand. why we need to import rice.

C cannot be correct because if there are some of strains of rice with exceptionally high yielding. as the premises says rice yields per arc not increased appreciably. therefore, some other strains of rice suffer a decrease in yield. as a result, the conclusion can survive. when we negate the answer choice, the conclusion still survive, then the answer choice is incorrect, according to negation method.

if you want me to elaborate, don't hesitate to ask
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:13 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by ThiMBA » Thu May 20, 2010 5:52 am
Utilizing the negation technique for assumption questions

A) No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia ---------- changed to ---------------- A pronounced trend of drecreasing per capita demand of rice is imminent in Teruvia

Conclusion falls apart hence A is correct
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 29 times

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon May 24, 2010 10:15 am
ssgmatter wrote:In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the
foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia's
population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly,
therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in
Teruvia.
B. Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the
cultivation of rice.
C. None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.
D. There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not
increase.
E. There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and
domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

I think C is the correct one. Please correct me with some reasons on this one

Thanks!
hi,
i think A should be the answer for this argument,
the argument only says that the total rice acreage wont increase while population in the country will increase. if the population change another kinds of cop, for example they will eat noodles or bread, it would be different, there will be no worry about whether rice is enough for consumption in the city.
Thus, consumption here is the key, if the demand for rice decrease, maybe the country wont have to import rice, however if the consumption is stable or increase while it product's stable or decrease, and population increases, the country will have to import more and more rice to meet the demand in the country
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Sun May 30, 2010 5:31 am
bupbebeo wrote:
ssgmatter wrote:In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to
satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the
foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia's
population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly,
therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in
Teruvia.
B. Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the
cultivation of rice.
C. None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.
D. There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not
increase.
E. There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and
domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

I think C is the correct one. Please correct me with some reasons on this one

Thanks!

I strongly believe that A is correct answer.

if we apply negation method, we can easily see that without A, the conclusion cannot be correct.

if there is a profound trend of decreasing in demand. why we need to import rice.

C cannot be correct because if there are some of strains of rice with exceptionally high yielding. as the premises says rice yields per arc not increased appreciably. therefore, some other strains of rice suffer a decrease in yield. as a result, the conclusion can survive. when we negate the answer choice, the conclusion still survive, then the answer choice is incorrect, according to negation method.

if you want me to elaborate, don't hesitate to ask
Hi Bupbebeo,

Can you please elaborate a bit more on option C.

Thanks in advance!
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 amFollowed by: 5 members
Thanked: 137 times

by thephoenix » Sun May 30, 2010 6:05 am
IMO c is contradicting the facts presented in stimulus .
stimulus clearly states that rice yield per acre is not increasing , but C contradicts this fact
A is a clear cut winner as it gives us the missing link
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Sun May 30, 2010 6:11 am
thephoenix wrote:IMO c is contradicting the facts presented in stimulus .
stimulus clearly states that rice yield per acre is not increasing , but C contradicts this fact
A is a clear cut winner as it gives us the missing link
Hi Phoenix,

Can you explain how C is contradicting the evidence in the argument.....

I understand that A makes the best sense and hopefully should be the correct OA here....But I really want to understand what is the problem with option C here....

Thanks!
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 amFollowed by: 5 members
Thanked: 137 times

by thephoenix » Sun May 30, 2010 6:24 am
oops!!!
its actually not contradicting rather its restating the evidence stated in the stimulus.its already stated that the yield per acre is not increasing.In a way its strengthening this part of the stimulus
Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Sun May 30, 2010 6:38 am
thephoenix wrote:oops!!!
its actually not contradicting rather its restating the evidence stated in the stimulus.its already stated that the yield per acre is not increasing.In a way its strengthening this part of the stimulus
Phoenix Bhai,

How come C restating the evidence.....argument is saying rice yield per acre will not increase and C says that none of strains of rice are high yielding....then how come it is restating the evidence.....

Can you elaborate a bit more on this
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 173 times
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sun May 30, 2010 7:26 am
ssgmatter wrote:
thephoenix wrote:oops!!!
its actually not contradicting rather its restating the evidence stated in the stimulus.its already stated that the yield per acre is not increasing.In a way its strengthening this part of the stimulus
Phoenix Bhai,

How come C restating the evidence.....argument is saying rice yield per acre will not increase and C says that none of strains of rice are high yielding....then how come it is restating the evidence.....

Can you elaborate a bit more on this
Phil & phoenix Bhai,

U shuld certainly go thru this link:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/teruvia-t49217.html


The funniest part of that post is we were answering the argument without the question stem.

Even Deepak dada has given his gyan there..hope that is suffice..!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1