Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 18:29 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 18:29

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 555-605 Levelx   Conclusionx            
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Posts: 860
Own Kudos [?]: 4468 [12]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
Send PM
CEO
CEO
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Status: World Rank #4 MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 3187
Own Kudos [?]: 1585 [0]
Given Kudos: 33
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Posts: 860
Own Kudos [?]: 4468 [0]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
Send PM
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 734
Own Kudos [?]: 1858 [1]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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....
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 48
Own Kudos [?]: 520 [0]
Given Kudos: 27
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
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
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Apr 2013
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 67 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 1034 [0]
Given Kudos: 103
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
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
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 239
Own Kudos [?]: 949 [0]
Given Kudos: 142
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
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


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.
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17221
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne