Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 00:06

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The United States government generally tries to protect

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1425
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 129

Kudos [?]: 644 [2] , given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 11 Dec 2012, 02:11
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

93% (02:24) correct 7% (02:33) wrong based on 117 sessions
The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?
(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon

_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Director
Director
User avatar
Status:
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 557
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: 1540 Q800 V740
Followers: 64

Kudos [?]: 288 [0], given: 11

Re: Protection of natural resources [#permalink] New post 11 Dec 2012, 02:17
Should be E

A: No information to decide on the cost-effectiveness of corn. Insufficient.
B: No information to decide on how much soil is needed to support corn cultivation. Incorrect.
C: Nowhere does the author say that soil conservation is the responsibility of the federal govt alone. Incorrect.
D: The stimulus says that the federal govt should spend more on conservation. It does not talk about the distribution of federal govt expenditures among the states. Incorrect.
E: The passage states "federal expenditures.......have remained at ridiculously low levels". This is enough to conclude that the federal govt should spend much more on soil conversation. CORRECT.

E it is.
_________________

GyanOne | http://www.GyanOne.com | +91 9899831738

Get a free detailed MBA profile evaluation

Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions blog


Image

Expert Post
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1425
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 129

Kudos [?]: 644 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Protection of natural resources [#permalink] New post 11 Dec 2012, 02:23
Expert's post
Hii Gyanone.
The removal of top soil and the less expenditure by federal government aren't simultaneous events? I mean, since the two are simultaneous so will the increase in one event lead to an increase in the other?
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Current Student
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1097
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 67

Re: Protection of natural resources [#permalink] New post 11 Dec 2012, 06:12
I narrowed it to D and E...Went on to select D but i do not think it is the right answer. The argument on whole talks about the federal expenses on the soil conservation.

D is incorrect since just a point is mentioned about allocation of funds to state..it can not be main point....
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 76
Location: United States
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 23

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 12 May 2013, 11:55
Marcab wrote:
The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?
(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon



Indecisive between D and E . I would go for E , since most of the premise focuses on how little the fed gov is doing for soil conservation.
below line stresses on it stating the expenditures on it have remained at ridiculously low levels.
Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels.

Could you please revert on the official answer ?

Thanks,
Jyothi
_________________

Jyothi hosamani

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 1

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 12 May 2013, 18:56
gmacforjyoab wrote:
Marcab wrote:
The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?
(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon



Indecisive between D and E . I would go for E , since most of the premise focuses on how little the fed gov is doing for soil conservation.
below line stresses on it stating the expenditures on it have remained at ridiculously low levels.
Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels.

Could you please revert on the official answer ?

Thanks,
Jyothi


The main point of the argument is "Although a very valuable resource in the form of soil is being lost during the production of corn, the federal government is doing less than adequate for the conservation of soil. "
Now let us look at the options.

Option A: Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
Unlike the argument, the emphasis here is on corn.
Hence it is incorrect.


Option B: A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
The argument isn't talking about the requirements to be met for the cultivation of corn.
Hence it is incorrect.


Option C: Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
The argument is only telling that the expenditure on soil conservation is low and may be implying that it needs to be increased. But it is in no way stating or implying that it is the federal government's responsibility.
So this option too is incorrect.


Option D: The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
This might be a fact stated in the argument. But the main point in the argument is that federal government has been spending less. It might also have been implying that the expenditure needs to be increased. But to judge the low expenditure as inequitable/unfair requires us to make assumptions.
Hence this option too might be incorrect, although it seems to be close to the answer.


Option E: The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.
The phrase "ridiculously low levels" in the sentence "federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels." actually implies that the government might need to spend more on the soil conservation program.
Again there can be an opinion difference between the meanings of " more " and "much more".
But among all the options only option E seems to come closest to the main point of the argument.



There is no correct option which precisely states the main point of the argument but Option E seems to be the closest answer available among the given.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 185
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 103

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 12 May 2013, 22:47
IMO E.

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
If i am correct eherewe are comparing expense by federal for the whole country < expense by some states for the same cause
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?

(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
wrong-Outside knowledge ignore
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore, we don't know if it is allocating same or diff amounts for states
E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.
Correct- seems to be the best ans
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 1
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2013, 06:11
I think the answer is E.

OA and OE please
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 310
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 142

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2013, 08:11
Marcab wrote:
The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?
(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon


A, B, C are out as explained by others here.
B/w D and E, I would take E because - the discussion of State funding comes only to undermine the role of the federal govt.. Option D doesn't raise a slightest hint that soil conservation is underfunded and just says the funding is inequitable. What do we get from inequitable funding ? we just get to know that the fed. is partial. Is that the main point ? If Yes, then why the author goes on explaining about how many inches of top soil has been consumed and why.

The main point is Fed. Govt. has ignored soil conservation and allocates insufficient funding. E is closest.
_________________

"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire


Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!

shit-happens-my-journey-to-172475.html#p1372807

Re: The United States government generally tries to protect   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2013, 08:11
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Utility companies in the United States are generally private BukrsGmat 7 04 Jul 2013, 02:18
7 The first United States Solicitor General, Benjamin H. solarzj 5 03 Jun 2012, 02:16
1 The United States government generally tries to protect lahoosaher 10 13 Sep 2009, 06:50
Constance Horner, chief of the United States governments Banta 6 19 Sep 2006, 22:52
Homeowners in the United States are typically protected GMATT73 11 13 Oct 2005, 23:43
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The United States government generally tries to protect

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.