Gortland has long been narrowly self‐sufficient in both grain and meat

This assumption question asks you to bridge the gap between the conclusion that garland will have to import meat or grain based and the premise that Meat consumption is increasing and meat uses lots of grain. Thus we will have to assume that the increase in meat consumption will mean that grain consumption either remains the same or also increases.

Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k,

#1
I know we can eliminate if use negative skill, but I have no idea where my reasoning is incorrect.
here is my reasoning:
the conclusion is Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both
Although per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, it doesn't necessary mean that whole consumption increases.
for example: if per consumption is 1kg , there are 10m people, then whole consumption is 20m, if per consumption increases to 2kg, but there are 8m people, then the whole consumption is 16m.
we need to know the whole consumption. my assumption is that if whole consumption exceeds production, the Gortland will import.
So i choice B, because if population has remained constant, then i can infer the whole consumption increases and exceeds the production, then Gortland need import.


#2
another question, I am not sure the meaning of "as" in However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average,

if it means simultaneous, then there is no causal relationship between per income increase and per consumption
if it means because, then apparently, there is a causal relationship between per income increase and per consumption

genuinely want your clarification.

Have a nice day
>_~

A. The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially.
total area will decrease , then might have to import. hence opposite

B. The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity.
even if pop not remain constant, then it can either increase/decrease.

C. The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels.
indicidual consumption may b different, but overal is what we are using. hence not relevant

D. In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.
pricing is out of scope

E. People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
if either way decreasing the consumption, then overal consumption may decrease. hence import not req

Hi, can I know why C is not the answer?

Looking at this part: "However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average,..... Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both." -> Here I see the author assumes as if meat consumption will keep increasing as the capita income increases - however I believe that's not necessarily the case as their will be some 'limit' to how much meat intake you can take.
I mean, being the richest guy doesn't make Bill Gates the largest consumer of meat, right?

Let's take a look at answer choice (C):

This is telling us that, regardless of income, people eat about the same amount of meat. If this were true, the very poorest people would eat just as much meat as the very richest. Is this an assumption required by the author's argument?

Not at all -- the author's argument still holds if people eat more meat at different income levels. We know that overall per capita income is increasing, and that there is a corresponding increase in the amount of meat eaten. There could still be a segment of the population at a low income level that cannot afford to eat meat, or a segment at the top that eats much more meat than most other people. Even if the Gortlandian equivalent of Bill Gates isn't consuming the largest amount of meat, it is very possible that people at different income levels eat different amounts of meat.

Because the author's argument doesn't require the information in (C) to be true, it is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

I hope that helps!

Passage Analysis:Gortland's meat consumption has risen. Several pounds of GRAIN to make 1 pound of MEAT.

Conclusion: Gortland will have to import GRAIN/MEAT/BOTH since Domestic GRAIN production will not increase

Pre-thinking: The consumption of GRAIN will not increase and hence will suffice for the current consumption as well as the requirement to produce more MEAT.

A. The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially.
--Incorrect: Just because acreage i.e land area provided for grain production has increased,we have no idea whether this would actually produce more grains or whether the land is viable for grain production. This may seem to strengthen but is not necessary!

B. The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity.
--Incorrect: We know the per capita consumption of meat has increased. However the population having remained constant (or not!) does not shine any light on their consumption decision !

C. The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels.
--Incorrect: Again this actually does not support the fact that we require more meat to be imported and casts a doubt on the premise itself!

D. In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.
--Incorrect: Does a price control even matter? Do we know what the reaction of the consumers of Gortland would be to their consumption decisions by this? No.

E. People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
--Correct: This is sort of along the same lines of the pre-thinking presented. It is just ensuring that for sure there is not going to be sufficient grain left because of the rise of the consumption levels of meat! So those who just want to eat grains or those who want to just have meat or both meat and grains will be affected ( or even ) if Gortland does not import more of these.

Gortland has long been narrowly self‐sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


A. The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially.

B. The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity.

C. The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels.

D. In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.

E. People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
can you plz check whether my negation is correct or not .In option a it is The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially. and if we negate it will become will decrease and if it decreases then still our conclusion will not fall down as we still have to import grains
But how can option b is wrong if populations does not remain constant and population decreases then no of people consuming food will decrease and then we will not have to import grain so how can option b is incorrect option
THANK YOU

Nice work.
Your negation is correct, as is your line of reasoning.
A, negated:
The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will decrease substantially.
This negation SUPPORTS the conclusion that Gortland will need to import grain and/or meat.
A valid negation must invalidate the conclusion.
Eliminate A.



B, negated:
The population of Gortland has not remained constant during the country’s years of growing prosperity.
Here, it is possible that the population increased, SUPPORTING the conclusion that Gortland will need to import grain and/or meat.
Since it is possible for this negation to support the conclusion, eliminate B.

C. The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels.

I thought this was a necessary assumption because if the increase in consumption was the same across all income levels then, Gortland will really have to import products. Can anyone clarify some more about why C is wrong ?

C, negated:
The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is not the same across all income levels.
Whether rich people eat more or less meat than poor people is irrelevant.
Since it is stated as a PREMISE that per capita consumption of meat is RISING and that the production of meat requires significant amounts of grain, the negation of C does not invalidate the conclusion that Gortland will need to import meat and/or grain.
Since C can be negated without destroying the conclusion, C is not a statement that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to hold and thus is NOT a valid assumption.
Eliminate C.

GMATNinja EducationAisle could you comment on (A). Here is what I thought



We are told that meat and grain production is on a certain level. And now this level is not enough for the increase in their demand. Now does (A) HAS TO BE TRUE? Let's say the acreage decreased. So does this make us believe that the country does not have to import grains? Certainly not. The acreage and thus the overall grain production could further decrease thereby increasing the likely hood of import. This strengthens.

Moreover, let's say the acreage decreases BUT the yield per acre increases. In that case the grain production may actually increase thereby reducing the possibility of importing grains. This weakens.

Hence (A) is out

In fact, there is every reason to believe that if acreage (land used for agriculture) decreases, then Gortland's production of grains will come down and so, Gortland will have to import grains, to meet the increasing demand for gains.

Remember, when looking for an assumption, we’re looking for an answer choice that MUST be true in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn. So, what MUST be true in order for us to conclude that “Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both”?

(A) indicates that the total acreage for grain production will not decrease. If anything, this would make us think that the overall grain production will not decrease. So, does it have to be true that grain production will NOT decrease for us to conclude that Gartland will soon have to import grain, meat, or both? Definitely not. If grain production decreases, we would have even more reason to believe the conclusion.

For that reason, (A) does not have to be true, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!

This is another stupid GMAT question that tests people's ability to eliminate rather than choosing the right answer.
Many question why (B) is not correct.
It is true that if population drop then you don't need to import - irrespective of evaluating from per capital or absolute total.
However read carefully question asks what assumption does the argument depend.
- it does not depend on the population remain stable.
it depends on population not declined.

It is a sufficient vs necessary assumption Q.

Understand the Passage

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat.Self-sufficient means demand < supply. Narrowly self-sufficient means demand ~ supply (~ means almost equal).
So, in Gortland demand ~ supply (for both grain and meat)

However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average,Two things have happened simultaneously in Gortland.

Per capita income ↑ and Per capita consumption of meat ↑. Both the figures have converged toward world average.

(if consumption of meat continues to rise, Gortland may not remain self-sufficient)

and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.To produce one pound meat, we need several pounds of grain.

Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.Given:

1. Per capita income continues to ↑
2. Domestic grain production will not ↑

The argument concludes that Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both.

The reasoning behind the conclusion is that since the per capita income is increasing, the per capita consumption of meat will also go up. Since, currently, demand and supply for meat and grain are almost equal, the additional demand for meat will need to be satisfied by either importing the meat directly or by converting grain into meat or by a combination of these two methods. In each of these cases, Gortland will need to import one or both of meat and grain.

Predict an Answer

The argument makes the below assumptions:

1. The past trend (in which per capita income and per capita consumption of meat increase simultaneously) will continue in the future.

About the future, we know from the passage that per capita income will increase. The passage doesn’t say that per capita consumption of meat will go up. Just a past trend has been mentioned in which both increase simultaneously. However, it is possible that this trend will not continue in the future. In such a case, there will not be any need for imports. Thus, the argument will break down in such a case.

2. The consumption of grain will not significantly go down.

The passage mentions only about the consumption of meat. It doesn’t mention about the consumption of grain. Now, we can think that if people increase their consumption of meat and simultaneously decrease their consumption of grain, Gortland may remain self-sufficient and thus, may not need to import meat or grain. In such a case, the argument will break down.

The point to note here is that we need “significantly” in the assumption. Why? Because it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. So, for every 1 pound increase in the consumption of meat, there has to be several pounds decrease in the consumption of grain for Gortland to remain self-sufficient.

Option Analysis

(A) Incorrect. If the total acreage decreases significantly, then Gortland will need to import. Thus, we can see that the negation of this option strengthens the argument. For an option to be an assumption, the negation should break down the argument. This option seems to be doing opposite.

(B) Incorrect.

- The negation of this option is: The population has not remained relatively constant.
- Now, it could mean that the population has gone down or it could mean that the population has gone up. In the latter case, the negation will support
the argument. Therefore, this option is not an assumption.
- Please note that in the former case i.e. when the population has gone down, the negation of this option can break down the argument. Why?
Because if the population has gone down, then even if per-capita consumption has gone up, the total consumption may not have increased. Thus,
Gortland may not need to import meat or grain ‘soon’. However, this scenario is just one of the scenarios out of the negation of the option and in the
other scenario, the option doesn’t break down. Therefore, this option is not an assumption.
- Given our analysis, we can see that the below statement will be an assumption: The population of Gortland has not decreased during the country’s
years of growing prosperity.
- There is a slight problem with the above statement, however. The problem is that the conclusion is in the future tense, and this option is in the
present perfect tense. If we change the above statement to below, it will be a correct assumption: The population of Gortland will not decrease as the
per-capita income increases.

(C) Incorrect. This option is completely irrelevant since the distribution of consumption at different income levels is irrelevant.

(D) Incorrect. This option is irrelevant because we have no information about the impact of government price controls on these items. How does it impact their consumption? So, whether these items are subject to or not subject to government price controls is irrelevant for us.

(E) Correct. In-line with our second predicted answer.

- The negation of this option is: People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will radically decrease their consumption of grain.
- If such people radically decrease their consumption of grain, then the total consumption of grain will go down, and such leftover grain can be used to
produce additional meat required. Therefore, Gortland will not need to import meat or grain in this case.
- We can see that the negation of this option breaks down the argument. Therefore, this option is an assumption.

Hi.

Few points that are problematic about answer E.

It is clearly stated that to make 1 pound of meat, it takes several pounds (At least 2) of grain. Now, humans don't consume several pounds of grains daily but can consume 1 pound of meat daily. Thus, as meat consumption, grain demand will have to go, irrespective of grain demand of humans.

On the other hand, consider option B. If the population of the country falls down drastically, there will be no need import (all data has been given on per capita basis). Hence, we need to assume that at least the population stays constant.

Please help me identify the flaw in my understanding.

Nothing in the passage tells us how many pounds of grains or meat a human eats, so you can't make any assumptions about that. And if grain consumption is radically reduced, as stated in (E), then the argument is in trouble -- perhaps Gortland can convert all of its current grain production to meat production without having to import either. So, we HAVE to assume that grain consumption won't be radically reduced.

Regarding (B): you've concluded that we need to assume that the population "at least says constant." In other words, it could remain constant OR increase. So, we don't need to specifically assume that "the population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing prosperity." Because the argument doesn't rely on the population remaining constant, (B) is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

I hope that helps!