Rice in Teruvia

[ssgmatter]

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!

[ssgmatter]

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?

[amitverma22]

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 ?

[sakali]

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.

[bupbebeo]

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

[ThiMBA]

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

[diebeatsthegmat]

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

[ssgmatter]

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!

[thephoenix]

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

[ssgmatter]

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!

[thephoenix]

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

[ssgmatter]

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

[gmatmachoman]

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..!