A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only

SOLUTION

Passage analysis

· A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart,
o A new machine to harvest corn has been invented. But to use it the corn plants have to be planted with a gap of only 15 inches between them.
· instead of the usual thirty inches.
o The current normal distance between plants is 30 inches.
· Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant.
o If corn is planted only 15 inches apart, the yield per plant will be lower.
· Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ________.
o Still, the corn farmers will be able to make their profits doubled in each acre by using the new machine. The reason for the same is our answer.

Question stem analysis

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
We need to logically complete this argument. We need to find a strengthener for the given conclusion that, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre.

Prethinking

Strengthen framework
What new information will help us believe more that the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre.
Given that
· The new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches.
· Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant.
Strengthener 1- What if the dense growth helps decrease cost in another way provided the new machine can harvest them?

Option Analysis

(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation
This option is in line with our prethought strengthener. Hence this is the right answer.

(B) with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants
This is not a strengthener because taller rows do not mean more yield. Therefore, it is not the correct answer.

(C) with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required
This option is a weakener because it talks about increasing expenditure on the corn fields. Therefore it is a wrong answer choice.

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double
This option cannot be the correct answer because this information is already given in the passage. It provides no new information. Remember – a strengthener must bring in new information we cannot infer from the passage. We are already given that instead of 30 inches apart, now we have the gap between successive corn rows as only 15 inches. Which essentially means pretty much double the number of corn rows, and so, pretty much double the number of plants grown. So, option D is not new information.

(E) with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted
This option also acts as a weakener because it talks about frequent years in which farming corn cannot be done. Hence this is an incorrect answer.

I pick A.

B: it is not stated how the profitability is affected by the increased hight of the plant....

C: this will decrease profits

D: Almost double, however the yield is lower per plant. So there is no way for double profits...

E: This will dercrease profits....

This is one of the most absurd question i have ever seen.The choice is between A and D.With A being the official answer,dare may I ask what is wrong in selecting B ?If we have to make assumptions then someone can assume that taller corn is better i.e. more yield.

Hello arkle,

The problem with B is that it points out that the corn plants will grow taller. This does not imply that the corn will be taller which might lead to increased productivity. It just implies that the structure of the plant will be taller. Farmers are interested in selling the corn and not corn plants. Hence, B makes little sense.

Let me know if you need any further clarification.

Thanks and Regards,
Kris

Hi - In my opinion the most important sentence in any CR is the first one that defines what type of question it is.

Here we are looking at a 'logically completes the argument' type one.

Here - yes you can always assume that the answer will not be a re-statement. It will be something that carries on the argument you have (you should be able to spot just from the passage that the argument is incomplete) and makes it all co-herent.

Do you have one of the standard Verbal books - they should give you a proper run down by question type.

James

Approach: Anytime I see profitability, I think Profit = Revenue - Costs. Revenue is driven by Price and Quantity and do not Costs - Variable and Fixed (typically never goes in this level of depth for GMAT, per what I have seen) . (Obviously, there are many many more real world situations but just a framework to think through)

Here, if the quantity is decreasing, I am expecting something that will impact the price e.g. higher quality or something that will hit the costs e.g. costs of operations e.g. weed control

A. with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

Spot on. Costs go down, hopefully significantly. Hold it for now – check other answers.

B. with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants

So what? How does this say anything about price, quantity, and costs? Irrelevant.

C. with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required

Lower yield, higher costs, profit down. Eliminate.

D. with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

True but combined with lower yield, does this do anything for profits? Rather, can we be conclusive?

E. with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted.

Same as C, answer is A

A for me

As for D, even if the number of plants doubles, the argument already said that the yield wil reduce. So, increased plants doesn't exactly mean increased grain output.

while A gives you a clear cut way of cost reduction. Profit = Revenue - Cost

the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because...
Profit = Revenue - Expense.

A. with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation
>> Correct.

D. with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double
>>"Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. " reduces the effect of "the number of plants grown per acre will almost double".

Here we go...

According to me Option A is correct.

Reasoning:
corn will be planted only fifteen inches apart instead of usual thirty inches -> This will lower yield, however the profit will double-----> How to fill this GAP (lower yield, higher profit)

option A fills the gap.

P : New Harvesting Machine plants fifteen inches apart instead of thirty inches.
Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant

C : the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because

Provide an Answer option that Strengthens the Conclusion :


B,C,E Can easily be eliminated.

Between A,D: A doesnt really convince me to believe that the Profit will double.

Option D : The plantation is Doubled clearly provides strength to the Conclusion Drawn.

Ans : D

mikemcgarry / GMATNinja can you please explain?

After going through the explanations above, I understood that option D is incorrect (this is what I had marked though). The reason is - Although the number of plants may almost double, the yield for all those plants will be low. If the reduction in yield = or more than increase in yield because of the number of plants doubling, we aren't sure.

However, A also makes an assumption. P = S - C. Question says yield is reduced (i.e., sales is reduced). Option A says C(cost) is reduced too.
Does this not imply that profit may remain same or increase or decrease depending on the value? How can we assume it will double the profits?

Dear Chef,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you missed a crucial detail. It didn't say that total yield for the whole field is reduced. It said that
Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant.
That's very different.

If yield per plant remained unchanged, then planting twice as many plants in the same field would double the yield. If the yield per plant decreases some moderate amount, then the full field would not give double the yield. We can assume that yield per plant goes down, say, by 10% o4 20%, but not by more than 50%. That would be a drastic reduction that would have to be noted in the text--essentially, the prompt would be lying by understatement, if the real drop in the yield were more than 50%. If the drop per plant is less than 50%, then the total yield of the field will increase, so S will increase.

If we then also decrease C, this is sure to increase profit.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike.

But how did you assume that the reduction is not more than 50%? Question just says reduced yield per plant.

"essentially, the prompt would be lying by understatement, if the real drop in the yield were more than 50%." Is this an assumption?

Dear Chef,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, you are using fundamentalist logic. You are reading this GMAT CR practice question with a fundamentalist hyper-literalist reading. The GMAT will punish you over and over if you stick to this reading strategy.

Yes, we have to be careful in reading exactly what the language says, but we have to take into account the sense of the language, how people actually communicate. Everything spoken has implications, and we have to be sensitive to these implications, not simply what is printed in black & white.

Consider the following statement:
"People in the USA are trying overthrow and bring down the entire system of government."
In a fundamentalist reading, this would be true, because there are a very small number of wacky people who have these anarchical designs. In the super literal reading, this sentence is correct. The problem is, this phrase makes it sound as if a large chunk of the population is engaged in these destabilizing efforts, and those implications are 100% false. If you presented this statement to any native English speaker in America and ask them whether it was true or false, almost everyone would say it is false. Here's the statement that native speakers would recognize as true and accurate.
Some very small proportion of people in the USA are trying overthrow and bring down the entire system of government.
The way language is used in everyday life does NOT follow the norms of a fundamentalist reading.

In context, the argument is creating the expectation that, even though we would have double the plants, we would not have quite double the yield, because "corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant." Saying this factually like this implies a decrease of maybe up to 20-30%. If a company said, "When you make this change, you will have lower yields," and then the yields went down by 75%, you would have the basis of a possible lawsuit. In other words, the phrasing we are given would sound like a lie if the drop were substantial. To be an honest claim, such a drop would have to be specified:
Corn planted this closely will produce a substantial decrease in yields per plant.
That would be a very different statement, which we would expect would involve a much larger drop.

My friend, you strike me as a person with a brilliant logical mathematical mind who has very little experience reading every day English, in newspapers and new journals. You will not understand what you are missing until you develop the intuition from a habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Experts,
I am not convinced with any of the explanations.
A) Doesn't explain why profit will be double, it might increase...but doubling!!!
B) The longer the plant, more could be the yield. Hence substantiating low yield issue. Still doesn't explain doubling of profit.
D) double yield still not sure.
Pls help.

Dear ManishKM1,

I'm happy to respond.

The GMAT CR is designed to prepare you for arguments in the real business world. Some GMAT CR arguments are waterproof, leaving us no doubts, and on others, we simply have to go with the most plausible option. It will be the same in the business world: sometimes you really are guaranteed, but many times, you have to take a gut-level guess and move on. Business people who wait for certainty each time go broke.

Here, we simply do not get an answer that guarantees the doubling. Sometimes the GMAT CR will not give you a 100% perfectly clear answer that guarantees the conclusion we want. Sometimes we just have to go with the most plausible answer. You have to have the intellectual agility to make this adjustment from question to question.

We know the plants will be more dense, and we know that each individual plant will have lower yield.

(A) tells us that another, unrelated big cost will drop--it's at least plausible that this could offset

(B) maybe the plants will be taller, but we know each plant will have a lower yield--no increase

(D) we already know this from the prompt: this adds zero new information

Choice (A) is not guaranteed of doubling, but it's the one that most plausibly conveys some kind of increase in profits.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Bunuel,

Can this tagged to " Complete the Passage " Section


Probus