last year a global disturbance of weather patterns

[peter456]

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world"s important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soyabeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year"s soyabean crop was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenom is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soyabeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soyabean prices to the weather phenomenom?

(A)Last year"s harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenom
(B)Most countries that produce soyabeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soyabeans last year
(C)The worl price of soyabeans also rose several times years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance
(D)Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed
(E)Prior to last year, soyabean prices had been falling for several years

Thanks for your inputs

[MartyMurray]

Information In The Prompt:

Global disturbance of weather patterns.
The disturbance adversely affected harvests.
Soybean harvest not affected but price went up.
Soybeans an important source of protein for people and livestock.

Conclusion:

Weather pattern disturbance somehow underlies the soybean price increase.

Question:

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soyabean prices to the weather phenomenon?

So likely there will be an answer choice that somehow establishes a CONNECTION between last year's weather patterns and the increase in the price of soyabeans.

(A)Last year"s harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenon.

Soybeans - important protein source for livestock. Anchovies - important protein source for livestock. The anchovy harvest was disrupted by the weather. So people likely substituted soyabeans for anchovies, bidding up the price of soyabeans. This answer support the conclusion by connecting the soyabean price increase to the weather.

(B)Most countries that produce soyabeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soyabeans last year.

This seems irrelevant. The conclusion is that the weather caused the soyabean price increase, and this choice does not seem to provide a way to make a connection between above average harvests, or the weather, and a soyabean price increase.

(C)The world price of soyabeans also rose several times years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance.

In the absence of any better answer choice, this one might have to do, but really this choice does not explain how the weather this past year affected the price of soyabeans.

(D)Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed.

This potentially weakens the conclusion by saying something that may indicate that the weather caused a reduction in demand for soyabeans.

(E)Prior to last year, soyabean prices had been falling for several years.

This does seem to indicate that something going on last year caused the soyabean price increase, but this does not connect the soyabean price increase to the weather and thus does little to support the conclusion.

There is only one answer choice that effectively connects the soyabean price increase to the weather conditions that existed last year.

The correct answer is A.

[GMATGuruNY]

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world"s important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soyabeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year"s soyabean crop was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenom is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soyabeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soyabean prices to the weather phenomenom?

(A)Last year"s harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenom
(B)Most countries that produce soyabeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soyabeans last year
(C)The world price of soyabeans also rose several times years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance
(D)Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed
(E)Prior to last year, soyabean prices had been falling for several years

Premise: Despite a disruption of weather patterns, the soybean crop increased.
Conclusion: The disruption of weather patterns is responsible for an increase in the price of soybeans.

The correct answer choice must explain how the disruption of weather patterns has led to an increase in the price of soybeans, despite an increase in the soybean crop.
Answer choice A does just what we need:
Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenon.
Implication:
A weather-related lack of anchovies has driven up the price of soybeans, which -- according to the prompt -- is an important source of protein for livestock.

The correct answer is A.

[Mo2men]

Last year a global disturbance of weather patterns disrupted harvests in many of the world"s important agricultural areas. Worldwide production of soyabeans, an important source of protein for people and livestock alike, was not adversely affected, however. Indeed, last year"s soyabean crop was actually slightly larger than average. Nevertheless, the weather phenomenom is probably responsible for a recent increase in the world price of soyabeans.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the attribution of the increase in soyabean prices to the weather phenomenom?

(A)Last year"s harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenom
(B)Most countries that produce soyabeans for export had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soyabeans last year
(C)The world price of soyabeans also rose several times years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance
(D)Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed
(E)Prior to last year, soyabean prices had been falling for several years

Premise: Despite a disruption of weather patterns, the soybean crop increased.
Conclusion: The disruption of weather patterns is responsible for an increase in the price of soybeans.

The correct answer choice must explain how the disruption of weather patterns has led to an increase in the price of soybeans, despite an increase in the soybean crop.
Answer choice A does just what we need:
Last year's harvest of anchovies, which provide an important protein source for livestock, was disrupted by the effects of weather phenomenon.
Implication:
A weather-related lack of anchovies has driven up the price of soybeans, which -- according to the prompt -- is an important source of protein for livestock.

The correct answer is A.

Hi Mitch,

Why D is wrong? Does it weaken the argument?Does it serve as alternate cause?

Thakns

[peter456]

Hi Murray,

Pls could u still help explain why C is wrong?
The increase in the price of soyabeans is consistent with previous trends.

Thanks

[GMATGuruNY]

Hi Mitch,

Why D is wrong? Does it weaken the argument?Does it serve as alternate cause?

Thakns

D: Heavy rains attributable to the weather phenomenom improved grazing pastures last year, allowing farmers in many parts of the world to reduce their dependence on supplemental feed.
Here, heavy rains have enabled farmers to REDUCE their dependence on supplemental feed such as soybeans, WEAKENING the conclusion that the recent increase in the price of soybeans is due to the global disturbance of weather patterns.
Eliminate D.

[peter456]

GmatGuru,
Your 2 cents pls on why C is wrong

Thanks

[GMATGuruNY]

GmatGuru,
Your 2 cents pls on why C is wrong

Thanks

C: The world price of soybeans also rose several years ago, immediately after an earlier occurrence of a similar global weather disturbance.
The passage discusses a SPECIAL CASE: despite the recent global disturbance of weather patterns, soybean production INCREASED.
The global disturbance several years ago -- which might easily have led to a DECREASE in soybean production -- tells us nothing about the special case discussed in the passage.
Eliminate C.

[peter456]

Thanks GmatGuru.
On another hand, I think previous trends are not a guarantee for future occurence.
Would this line of reasoning be adequate to quickly eliminat C?

That to say even if C mentions weather impact causing a drop in price, the option would still not surfice.

[annays]

Hi GMATGuru,

Could you tell me why B is wrong?

Thanks!

[RBBmba@2014]

@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

[Sun Light]

@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

I think B is silent about price details of soyabean. It just says what happened to the production of other crops.

[MartyMurray]

@Verbal Experts,
Could you please let me know whether the following reason to eliminate option B is correct or not -

The ARGUMENT says "last year's soybean crop was actually slightly larger than average", whereas the option B states that Most countries that produce soybeans had above-average harvests of a number of food crops other than soybeans last year -- it cealry implies that Soyabean production WASN'T above-average.

So, it appears to be a clear contradiction to what it's being stated in the ARGUMENT (in BLUE).

Am I correct ?

What you are saying is not really right, for two reasons.

One reason is that the answers to any well constructed CR question will not contradict facts stated in the prompt. So seeking to eliminate an answer choice by using what seems to be a contradiction between that answer choice and a prompt is not a productive way to train for the GMAT.

The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soyabeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soyabean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soyabeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soyabeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soyabeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soyabean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soyabeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

[RBBmba@2014]

What you are saying is not really right, for two reasons.

One reason is that the answers to any well constructed CR question will not contradict facts stated in the prompt. So seeking to eliminate an answer choice by using what seems to be a contradiction between that answer choice and a prompt is not a productive way to train for the GMAT.

Marty - well, I get your point in RED, but I've witnessed a number of instances in which the INCORRECT choice of an Official CR contradicts (or AT LEAST weakens) a PREMISE given in the argument. Now,as we know that the PREMISE given in the argument, can't be WEAKENED or CONTRADICTED, so isn't it logical to accept that answer choice as an INCORRECT option under such circumstances ?

The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soyabeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soyabean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soyabeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soyabeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soyabeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soyabean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soyabeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

I don't get this.

Let's say, X happened for a number of scenarios OTHER THAN B -- so, the phrase OTHER THAN clearly indicates that X didn't happen in case of scenario B. How this interpretation could be wrong ?

Could you please help ?

[MartyMurray]

What you are saying is not really right, for two reasons.

One reason is that the answers to any well constructed CR question will not contradict facts stated in the prompt. So seeking to eliminate an answer choice by using what seems to be a contradiction between that answer choice and a prompt is not a productive way to train for the GMAT.

Marty - well, I get your point in RED, but I've witnessed a number of instances in which the INCORRECT choice of an Official CR contradicts (or AT LEAST weakens) a PREMISE given in the argument. Now,as we know that the PREMISE given in the argument, can't be WEAKENED or CONTRADICTED, so isn't it logical to accept that answer choice as an INCORRECT option under such circumstances ?

While what is stated in some answer choices may SEEM to contradict the facts upon which an argument is based, I don't believe that I have ever seen in an official question an answer choice something that TRULY contradicts something stated as fact in an argument. If you have examples of such contradictions, please feel free to provide them as discussion points. I would really like to see them.

The second reason is that what choice B says does not in fact contradict what the prompt says. Saying that harvests of "crops other than soyabeans" were above average does not clearly imply that soyabean production was not above average. In other words, while yes, the expression "crops other than soyabeans" could be seen as having the connotation that soyabeans were not among the crops the harvests of which were above average, really the presence of the expression "other than soyabeans" does not clearly or unambiguously indicate that the soyabean crop was not above average.

Consider the following.

"Last year the soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvests of food crops other than soyabeans were above average."

Clearly the meaning of second clause of the sentence does not contradict that of the first clause.

I don't get this.

Let's say, X happened for a number of scenarios OTHER THAN B -- so, the phrase OTHER THAN clearly indicates that X didn't happen in case of scenario B. How this interpretation could be wrong ?

Could you please help ?

"Other than" can be used in a variety of ways. The CONTEXT determines whether the object of "other than" is excluded from consideration.

"Other than" can be used in ways similar to those in which "apart from" or "besides" is used.

Really, "other than" simply indicates that things that are, of all things, OTHER things.

Are there any crops that are not soyabeans?

Are there any crops other than soyabeans?

Soyabeans are crops. Things other than soyabeans are also crops.

"Other than" can be used in sentences describing contrasts, but not every sentence using "other than" describes a contrast.

In these examples, a contrast is made between the harvest of soyabeans and the harvests of other crops.

While the soyabean harvest was not above average, the harvests of other crops were above average.

While the soyabean harvest was not above average, the harvests of crops other than soyabeans were above average.

In these examples "other" and "other than" are used, but no contrast is made.

The soyabean harvest was above average. The harvests of other crops were also above average.

The soyabean harvest was above average, and the harvest of crops other than soyabeans were also above average.

Possibly you are conflating "other than" with "except for". "Except for" is always used to convey exclusion or contrast.