ak2121 wrote:
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
mexicanhoney wrote:
An overly centralized economy, not the changes in the climate, is responsible for the poor agricultural production in country x since its new government came to power. Neighboring country y has experienced the same climate conditions, but while agricultural production has been falling in country x, it has been rising in country y.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?
(a) Industrial production also is declining in country x.
(b) Whereas country y is landlocked, country x has a major seaport.
(c) Both country x and country y have been experiencing drought conditions.
(d) The crops that have always been grown in country x are different from those that have always been grown in country y.
(e) Country x's new government instituted a centralized economy with the intention of ensuring an equitable distribution of goods.
D.
A: this strengthens the argument. Suggesting that centralized economy is to blame.
B: Irrelevent
C: Basically says what the psg said. X and Y experienced the same climate conditions.
E: Doesn't weaken the argument. This is irrelevent.
D: suggests that something else was the cause. i.e. bananas are grown in Y where as brussel sprouts grown in X.
Why is B irrelevant? I mean having seaports and being landlocked causes climatic differences right?
Let's start by considering the main conclusion: "an overly centralized economy,
not changes in climate, is responsible for the poor agricultural production in Country X since its new government came to power."
This conclusion is supported by the fact that agricultural production has been in rising Country Y, which has "experienced the
same climate conditions" as Country X.
You raise an interesting question. Does being landlocked vs. having seaports cause climatic differences? That certainly seems
possible.
But keep in mind that the question already tells us that the two countries experienced the "
same climate conditions." This is presented as a fact on which the argument is based (as opposed to a conclusion or an inference of the argument), so we can safely assume it's true.
So even if being landlocked vs. not landlocked
could affect climate (and we're not really even sure about this), we know for a fact that Country X and Country Y have experienced the "
same climate conditions," so (B) isn't relevant.
However, if we had reason to believe that the same climate conditions could affect Country X
differently than Country Y, that could undermine the argument. Since (D) tells us the two countries grow different crops, this gives a reason Country X could react differently than Country Y to the same climate conditions.
Since this provides an alternative explanation for Country X's poor agricultural production, (D) is the answer.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC