Question Type: Identified as "Must be true"
Fact1: Rate of erosion of 'plowed land' is greater than its rebuilding.
Fact2: Cause and Effect - Continually Cultivated land (Assumed to be continually plowed) will become exhausted. True: If 'till' agriculture practiced False: if 'No-Till' agriculture practiced.
Fact3: Explanation of No-Till and its practiced only by(in) 16%.
With these facts in mind lets see each answer choice:
A. No mention in Premises that No-Till agriculture is costly,(Hence affordable to wealthy only). Reject this.
B. May be (May be because it uses too strong language) but still a contender as it states a 'may be' 'probable' conclusion to the facts.
C. Although it feels simple that soil erosion may lead to decrease in fodder for dairy and poultry animals, its relation has not been mentioned in the premises. Also It's opposite of what can be the possible implication of soil erosion(decrease of fodder). Reject this.
D. It is highly irrelevant. Reject.
E. This goes few steps ahead of the premises. While premises only stated: Erosion more than rebuild, of plowed land > So 'till' agriculture will cause erosion > Majority practices 'till' agriculture. Next steps: As majority uses 'till' agriculture it will cause soil erosion > Majority of soil will get eroded > So this is a problem(assuming all land of US will get eroded, assuming all land is being cultivated or will be cultivated) > [Now the Answer comes into picture] it states Hypo**** farming will solve this problem. As lots of assumptions not mentioned in premise, its a no. Reject.
[spoiler]Best option seems to be (B).[/spoiler]
Fact1: Rate of erosion of 'plowed land' is greater than its rebuilding.
Fact2: Cause and Effect - Continually Cultivated land (Assumed to be continually plowed) will become exhausted. True: If 'till' agriculture practiced False: if 'No-Till' agriculture practiced.
Fact3: Explanation of No-Till and its practiced only by(in) 16%.
With these facts in mind lets see each answer choice:
A. No mention in Premises that No-Till agriculture is costly,(Hence affordable to wealthy only). Reject this.
B. May be (May be because it uses too strong language) but still a contender as it states a 'may be' 'probable' conclusion to the facts.
C. Although it feels simple that soil erosion may lead to decrease in fodder for dairy and poultry animals, its relation has not been mentioned in the premises. Also It's opposite of what can be the possible implication of soil erosion(decrease of fodder). Reject this.
D. It is highly irrelevant. Reject.
E. This goes few steps ahead of the premises. While premises only stated: Erosion more than rebuild, of plowed land > So 'till' agriculture will cause erosion > Majority practices 'till' agriculture. Next steps: As majority uses 'till' agriculture it will cause soil erosion > Majority of soil will get eroded > So this is a problem(assuming all land of US will get eroded, assuming all land is being cultivated or will be cultivated) > [Now the Answer comes into picture] it states Hypo**** farming will solve this problem. As lots of assumptions not mentioned in premise, its a no. Reject.
[spoiler]Best option seems to be (B).[/spoiler]
Last edited by coderversion1 on Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.












