Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both

E is the answer. If the meat consumption increases, the grain consumption should come down, which will offset partially the production of meat. But if it doesn't happen, then the import becomes necessary

Most answers are either out-of-scope or are not really an assumption made to derive to the conclusion, except E.

Prod: production, Cons: consumption

Must be: Grain Prod + Meat Prod = Meat Cons + Grain Cons
Grain Prod : SAME
Grain Cons: NO IDEA
Meat Prod: SAME
Meat Cons: UP

In order for the equation to be valid, grain consumption must decrease. Since the author suggest importing grain or meat or both, then he must've assumed that grain consumption will not decrease to balance the equation of production and consumption.

ANSWER: E

B and E are the ones to be considered. I chose E over B because on a second look at B,if the popultation growth is negated then we havt to consider both rise and fall in population, and these two may have different effects on the argument. For example, if population decreases while total meat consumed is same, the per capita consumption increases and if population groth increases while total meat consumed is same, the per capita consumption decreases.

E states that if both grains and fruits are consumed at an increasing rate, there will be a shortage making import of both necessary.

We know that both the income and the meat consumption are rising, we can say that with an higher income their have more money to spend on meat as well. But this could be an inference, not an assumption.

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

is not an assumption (hence something necessary for the argument to be valid); the conclusion is "Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both" and even if we negate C "the per capita cons is NOT the same" the argument still holds true.

Even if the richest consume more meat than the others (for example), still Gortland will have to import one thing or both. Keep in mind that the assumption is something necessary, so if you negate an option and still the conclusion is valid=>the option is not the assumption we're looking for.

The argument clearly says that the production of meat depends on the amount of grain available. That means, if the consumption of grain decreases and thereby increasing the amount of grain available for meat production, meat production will ultimately increase. Hence, no need to import either grain or meat.

Hope it makes sense

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 soon decrease.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

Conclusion: Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both.

Premise(s): As per capita income rises, so will per capita consumption of meat. It takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, and domestic grain production will not increase. So Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both.

Prephrase: Let’s try to identify a possible assumption before answering the answer choices. It’s hard to identify one, so I think we’re working with a defender assumption. Let’s use the assumption negation technique and see which one weakens the argument the most. Using the assumption negation technique in the answer choices we can try and find the assumption on which the argument depends.

a) If grain production in Gortland will not soon decrease – Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both. Thus, grain production in Portland will not increase, nor decrease, this keeps the premise intact and therefore doesn’t weaken the argument.
b) Importing either grain or meat will result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders incomes being spent on food than is currently the case. Thus, food consumption will rise, therefore per capita consumption of meat is also likely to increase. Doesn’t weaken.
c) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is not increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels. Thus different income levels have different levels of meat consumption. But it’s still increasing, so it still keeps the premises in check.
d) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is not rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers. The income of the meat producers themselves isn’t relevant. Therefore out of scope.
e) People in Portland who increase their consumption of meat will radically decrease their consumption of grain. If people in Portland decrease their consumption of grain, then Gortland will no longer have to import either grain or meat or both.

Therefore, answer choice E is correct. As it weakens the argument the most and is therefore the underlying assumption that holds the entire frigging thing together.

nightblade354 Bunuel

In this thread,two questions are being discussed. Argument,question stem and OA are same for both questions but options are different.

1st Question
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 soon decrease.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

2 nd
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.

Is possible to have seperate threads for these 2 questions?

Princ,

The topics have been split and the second question has been posted here.

I understand the confusion, so good job pointing it out.

-- Mod Nightblade

Conclusion : Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
Irrelevant to the conclusion; eliminate
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
Irrelevant to the conclusion; eliminate
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
If it's increasing across all income levels or not is irrelevant. We're concerned and are already told about the net per capita increase; Eliminate
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
Income is irrelevant to the argument; Eliminate
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
Correct; If people will radically decrease their consumption of grain then the conclusion of importing grain/meat or both falls apart.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.