Critical Reasoning

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?
(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.


OA later .....chow for now

The passage talks a resource that has been ignored by US. Then the passage provide some details on that resource, followed by the minimal expenditure to conserve that resource.

1. talks abt the subsitute that are not discussed
2. it is related to the detail
3. responsibilities are not discussed.
4. close to intent of the passage. (Correct)
5. should --> recommendations not discussed.

IMO D

(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible. -- [Nothing about being cost effective]

(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn. -- [What will happen with the left amount is not to be discussed , OOS]

(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states. -- [Its not shifting blames , so this cannot be considered]

(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable. -- [This is close , premise states that all states are not contributing to soil mconservation equally , but its already stated so it cant be the main point as the argument expresses concern over soil conservation and expects some work to be done , not just criticizing ]

(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending. -- [This is the main point of argument , argument wants some action to be taken to conserve soil that is by spending more money to conserve soil .]

IMO E

A agree that D/E are probable contenders

Can you kindly explain why it is not E? Who is giving recommandations and why he cannot?

I will go wth E.
D actually says federal govts expenditure has not been fair(inequitable) in various states, whr does the passage say this?
it only says, Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
it doesnt talk abt how much the govt allocates to individual states.
though i agree E is trong its the best option available.

rahul, OA?

IMO it is answer choice "E" for the same reasons as rohu27.

This is a main point question. In any main point question the answer will be a paraphrase of the main conclusion of the argument. So as long as you can identify the premises of the argument and the conclusion then you are golden!

P: Corn produced MIGHT result in topsoil loss
P: Topsoil has been erroded in last 100 years
P: Federal spending for soil programs is very low
P: Total federal spending for soil programs is less than the spending of some states
C: Topsoil (is being ignored and) should be protected

(A) This COULD be true, but isn't necessarily true (use of the word MIGHT in the stimulus) and certainly isn't the main conclusion of the stimulus. INCORRECT

(B) Again this certainly isn't the main conclusion of the stimulus and further the passage says nothing to indicate that corn can't be cultivated in the 8 inch topsoil. INCORRECT

(C) It indicates that the "US government generally..." not specifically the federal government in the first sentence. Thus it is not the sole responsibility of the federal government. INCORRECT

(D) The modifier "in the various states" could be referring to "...have been less than the allocation of some individual states". The passage isn't stating that the soil conservation spending ONLY IN THOSE STATES is inadequate or else the conclusion would be "Topsoil (is being ignored in certain states) and should be protected in those states." INCORRECT

Many people think that the conclusion lies in the last sentence of the passage and this trick relies on that. Additionally a seemingly correct answer (to narrow scope) comes right before a correct answer which is a common occurrence.

This is an interesting question to do - but keep in mind that this type of question "what is the main point?" is not typically found on the GMAT in this way.

Why is this? Because the GMAT usually asks questions about the "inferences" or "conclusions" that can be drawn. Inferences and conclusions are things that "must be true." The main point of an argument is not something that necessarily must be true.

You need to keep this separate so that you do not mess up your inference question strategy. The answer to this question (E) would actually be a distraction on the GMAT and not the correct answer Why is this? Because it is not must be true that the United States should spend more money. This is not something that is completely supported by the premises. On GMAT inference questions you cannot take a leap that is not supported.

Here is an example that I have just made up for the occasion:

"Michael Jackson was once filmed holding his child over the railing of a second story balcony. The ground below was paved and the child was in Danger."

Now a "main point" type of question might have the answer "Michael Jackson should not have done this." But this would not be an answer for an inference question. Why? Because it is not supported. You cannot make that leap in an inference question.

Perhaps there was a compelling reason, the baby was in danger inside, maybe from a fire, would be such a reason. The point is that on an inference question on the GMAT we cannot draw our conclusion but instead must stay within the scope the premises give us. Answer choice E goes beyond the scope. The premises do not TELL us that the U.S. Government should spend more. This is not guaranteed to be true.

But you will say, the Federal Government spends less than SOME states. What if those states spend hundreds of billions of dollars on soil? In the U.S. education spending is much greater from the individual states and very little from the Federal Government. Maybe the same is true here. And hypotheticals like that are not even necessary. You simply need to see that choice E is not proven as MUST BE TRUE.

E has another problem, the hallmark of an incorrect answer on the GMAT. How about the word "much" as in "should spend much more" much is hard to define and goes beyond what we can prove.

Anyway, I would have eliminated E as beyond what the stimulus guarantees us as true. Here are some other ways this argument could conclude. "And so the states have taken over the responsibility in this area of resource conservation." Or "And that is why we should no longer grow corn." Or "So do not have any children because the top soil will eventually run out and they would starve."

Do you see my point? Yes E is the most likely of these 5 but it would never be the correct answer on the GMAT. In fact it is the perfect example of a distractor choice.

OA is E

i would definitely agree with david that it takes "a leap of faith" to do such question n ur MJ example was really relevant on this issue....this is an LSAT question but i 've found LSAT questions to be deeper in terms of logic while the GMAT questions 've much simpler concepts though they mask the language in such a manner that it seems really heavy

DAVID --- pls clarify on this issue ....is it necessary that we don't get main point questions on GMAT at all( i've been trying to paraphrase the conclusion in this case n the strategy has worked out well ....however most 've been LSAT questions in this context)

P.S:
I again request someone if s/he can tell me abt some link/collection on 700+ questions on SC and CR really running outta material here......n i need sth seriously challenging.....would be highly obliged

I have made many postings on using the LSAT to study for the GMAT as you might have seen. So I am an advocate but it is important to note the differences as well so that students do understand that E on this question would not be a correct answer on the GMAT.

Have you tried the Veritas books? Not all 700+ questions (why would they be since not all questions that anyone sees on test day are 700+?) but some good ones there.

haven't tried the veritas book....so wouldn't know much abt it......n I 've been working on some serious questions but as u see, ve invested a lot on books n dun wanna do much more on that issue.... looking for some free material that i can work on( i may sound cheeky though but that's the way it is sry)