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
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.