Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 03:14 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 03:14
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
605-655 Level|   Complete the Passage|            
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,931
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,931
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 13 May 2021, 12:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
mathematical example on how one can achieve the target of doubling profits/acre by increasing revenues by x 1.5 itself (doubling revneues not needed)

Quote:
Example situation where profits are doubled when revenues are increased by x 1.5 only (not x 2) assuming costs and price is the same.

10 $ in revenues - 5 $ in costs = 5 $ in profits

Quantity increased by x 1.5 (less than double)

15 $ in revenues - 5 $ in costs = 10 $ in profits

Profits have doubled by having revenues increase by x 1.5 only (you don't need revenues to increase by x 2)
Show more

The question didn’t ask us to find an answer choice that allows for the possibility that the profits would double. The question wants us to find an answer that most logically completes the argument.

the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre despite the lower yields per plants. This is very surprising, and we’re going to need some kind of new information that would explain this surprising claim. Answer D doesn’t exclude the possibility that the claim is true, but it doesn’t do much to convince me that the claim is true. I don’t know what “lower yields per plant” means, so I don’t know whether doubling the number of plants would compensate for the lower yield, and to what extent. Consider also that D doesn’t really provide new information - it’s something we could have inferred from the argument.
Answer A is much more convincing, since it tackles the other side of the profit equation: costs.
To be clear, both A and D would lead me to ask many follow up questions in real life. But, if I wasn’t allowed to ask any follow up questions, I’d be more convinced by A simply because it tells me something I didn’t already know, and addresses an aspect of the profit equation into which we previously had no insight.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 16 May 2021, 16:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman


The question didn’t ask us to find an answer choice that allows for the possibility that the profits would double. The question wants us to find an answer that most logically completes the argument.

the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre despite the lower yields per plants. This is very surprising, and we’re going to need some kind of new information that would explain this surprising claim. Answer D doesn’t exclude the possibility that the claim is true, but it doesn’t do much to convince me that the claim is true. I don’t know what “lower yields per plant” means, so I don’t know whether doubling the number of plants would compensate for the lower yield, and to what extent. Consider also that D doesn’t really provide new information - it’s something we could have inferred from the argument.
Answer A is much more convincing, since it tackles the other side of the profit equation: costs.
To be clear, both A and D would lead me to ask many follow up questions in real life. But, if I wasn’t allowed to ask any follow up questions, I’d be more convinced by A simply because it tells me something I didn’t already know, and addresses an aspect of the profit equation into which we previously had no insight.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

I have seen many experts mention what you typed in the blue font above. Not sure I agree option D is inferable from the argument . Reason :

All the arguement said was the space between corn plants has halved. Just beause the space has been halved - does not NECESSARILY mean that the number of plants will double (maybe spacing was halved and in the new space, Olives were planted instead)

In fact, I recall making sure I made it a point NOT TO ASSUME that the numer of CORN plants will NECESSARILY double JUST BECAUSE spacing between corn plants has been halved - When I read the arguement specifically.

Option D was the first time it was confirmed to me that indeed, spacing was halved AND number of corn plants was doubled

Hence option D did provide new information about doubling of the number of Corn Plants (Not inferable necessarily from the arguement)

Thoughts ?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,580
 [4]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,580
 [4]
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 17 May 2021, 05:39
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
avigutman


The question didn’t ask us to find an answer choice that allows for the possibility that the profits would double. The question wants us to find an answer that most logically completes the argument.

the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre despite the lower yields per plants. This is very surprising, and we’re going to need some kind of new information that would explain this surprising claim. Answer D doesn’t exclude the possibility that the claim is true, but it doesn’t do much to convince me that the claim is true. I don’t know what “lower yields per plant” means, so I don’t know whether doubling the number of plants would compensate for the lower yield, and to what extent. Consider also that D doesn’t really provide new information - it’s something we could have inferred from the argument.
Answer A is much more convincing, since it tackles the other side of the profit equation: costs.
To be clear, both A and D would lead me to ask many follow up questions in real life. But, if I wasn’t allowed to ask any follow up questions, I’d be more convinced by A simply because it tells me something I didn’t already know, and addresses an aspect of the profit equation into which we previously had no insight.

Posted from my mobile device

I have seen many experts mention what you typed in the blue font above. Not sure I agree option D is inferable from the argument . Reason :

All the arguement said was the space between corn plants has halved. Just beause the space has been halved - does not NECESSARILY mean that the number of plants will double (maybe spacing was halved and in the new space, Olives were planted instead)

In fact, I recall making sure I made it a point NOT TO ASSUME that the numer of CORN plants will NECESSARILY double JUST BECAUSE spacing between corn plants has been halved - When I read the arguement specifically.

Option D was the first time it was confirmed to me that indeed, spacing was halved AND number of corn plants was doubled

Hence option D did provide new information about doubling of the number of Corn Plants (Not inferable necessarily from the arguement)

Thoughts ?
Show more
What you are saying is somewhat valid. Notice, however, that if a farmer goes from planting corn 30 inches apart to planting corn 15 inches apart, then logically, it has become possible to plant twice as many plants as were planted 30 inches apart. So, the information provides by (D) logically follows from what the passage says.

Furthermore, there is an even clearer reason why (D) does not logically complete the passage.

The correct answer must support this conclusion:

the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because

Now, notice that the passage says the following:

Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant.

What does that information mean to us? I means that doubling the number of plants will not result in a doubling of profits, because the yield per plant will decrease. In other words, doubling the number of plants will not take the yield from x to 2x but from x to <2x.

So, what (D) says, "the number of plants grown per acre will almost double," cannot explain why a doubling of profits will occur.
User avatar
adityaganjoo
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Last visit: 04 Oct 2022
Posts: 148
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 148
Kudos: 32
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 12 Jun 2021, 20:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Swagatalakshmi
Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ________.
Show more
What we know - they are unquestionable:
(i) Machine reduces the spacing between the rows by half
(ii) Reduced spacing between the rows would reduce the yield per plant
(iii) Profits per acre would double

Profits increase when:
(i) Units sold increase while profits per unit sale don't fall, which follows an increase in production
(ii) Expenses per unit produced decrease, while sales remain the same

Quote:

(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation
Show more
Costs of irrigation and of weed control will reduce. Also, the use of the adverb "costly" further strengthens this option. Keep (A) for now

Quote:

(B) with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants
Show more
We don't know whether the products of taller plants are more valued in the market. However, we are sure that taller plants, in this case, will not give a greater yield. This does not help. Reject (B)

Quote:

(C) with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required
Show more
This conflicts the argument mentioned earlier. Reject (C)

Quote:

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double
Show more
We are told that the yield per plant would drop. How much, we don't know. We don't know whether the drop would be more than half. Also, we cannot conclude anything about the change in expenses. Drop (D)

Quote:

(E) with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted
Show more
[/quote]
This is a technical detail and we are not aware about the impact of fallout years. Reject (E).

Therefore, the best answer is (A)
avatar
hientranzx
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
41
Given Kudos: 37
Posts: 70
Kudos: 41
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 14 Jun 2021, 00:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ________.

fifteen inches apart: Corn will produce lower yields per plant
new machine --> double profits per acre because

(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation
This is the correct answer.
Profit = income - cost.
Cost 🠗 --> Profit 🠑

(B) with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants
No information about profit

(C) with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required
Profit = income - cost.
Cost 🠑 --> Profit 🠗

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double
Corn will produce lower yields per plant --> income 🠗

(E) with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted
requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted --> profit 🠗
User avatar
ChiranjeevSingh
User avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 411
Own Kudos:
3,061
 [2]
Given Kudos: 155
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 2: 735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Posts: 411
Kudos: 3,061
 [2]
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 28 Feb 2022, 00:34
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Swagatalakshmi
Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ________.


(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

Show more

I think many people reject the correct option A because after reading the first 10-12 words, they feel it's a lot of fluff that doesn't matter. They are probably thinking, "whether these plants form a canopy or now doesn't matter". They're right. This doesn't matter if this were the only thing given. However, the sentence builds upon this idea and ends up giving a financial advantage of this. What we can learn from this mistake is:

Don't reject an option on the basis of the first few words. Understand the whole sentence and then take a call whether it's right or not.


Option D is wrong because this information was already expected from the passage. The problem was that we had a lower yield per plant. So, even if the number of plants doubles, our yield of corn would not double. Then, how would our profits double? This option doesn't give any reason to answer this question.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only Updated on: 29 Jun 2022, 11:32
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 29 Jun 2022, 10:45.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 29 Jun 2022, 11:32, edited 9 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi KarishmaB zhanbo

I am struggling to fully eliminate (D) because you can achieve your goal (of doubling profits per acre) within the given parameters in (D)

  • Keeping costs the same, YOU DONT NEED your revenues to double to have profits double. It depends on your costs.

    Revenues can increase by as little as 50 % and still your profits CAN double (x 2)

    Linked is a simple mathematical example showcasing when revenues are increased by only 50 % (x 3/2), profits double (x2)
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
 [1]
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
 [1]
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 29 Jun 2022, 11:01
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
^^^^
ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi KarishmaB zhanbo

Thus, with the information in (D) -- (D) allows for the possibility that revenues have increased by 70 % and profit/acre MORE THAN DOUBLED -- If the costs are low enough, an increase of revenues of 70 % is MORE THAN ENOUGH for profit/acre to double (> 100 % increase)

Why then is (D) still wrong when one could technically reach the desired result (of doubling profits/acre) within the parameters provided by (D) - it is mathematically possible to reach the goal .
Attachments

pic 2.png
pic 2.png [ 21.93 KiB | Viewed 2110 times ]

User avatar
zhanbo
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Last visit: 07 Jul 2024
Posts: 1,467
Own Kudos:
2,455
Given Kudos: 114
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V42
GRE 1: Q169 V168
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V42
GRE 1: Q169 V168
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 1,467
Kudos: 2,455
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 29 Jun 2022, 15:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
^^^^
ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi KarishmaB zhanbo

Thus, with the information in (D) -- (D) allows for the possibility that revenues have increased by 70 % and profit/acre MORE THAN DOUBLED -- If the costs are low enough, an increase of revenues of 70 % is MORE THAN ENOUGH for profit/acre to double (> 100 % increase)

Why then is (D) still wrong when one could technically reach the desired result (of doubling profits/acre) within the parameters provided by (D) - it is mathematically possible to reach the goal .
Show more

jabhatta2, I am with you. It is possible to double or even triple profits with slightly improved production if the cost difference is negligible. (Actually, cost may be even lower, as (A) mentions.)

So, I guess that we eliminate (D) only because it does not really add any new information to what we already know. If (D) were to mention "with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double while the cost to grow them is only marginally higher". It should be a strong answer. Even if it says "...while the cost to grow them is only 50% higher", we can still defend it.

A hard question. Know the trick that if an answer choice does not add anything materially new, it cannot be the answer.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 30 Jun 2022, 05:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Swagatalakshmi
Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ________.


(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

(B) with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants

(C) with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

(E) with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted
Show more


Rows will be planted 15 inches apart, not 30. So in the same area, one could theoretically plant almost twice the number of plants. But if plants are this close, their yields (per plant) will reduce. So we would think that the overall yield may increase but will not double.
Nevertheless, the author expects the PROFIT to double (mind you, not the yield).

Since profit depends on revenue as well as cost and revenue is expected to increase somewhat, the chances of profit doubling increase if cost is reduced too.
We need to find something that explains why profit will double (mind you, profit can double even if revenue doesn't double say revenue goes up from $100 to $150 and cost stays the same at $50. The profit goes up from $50 to $100)
Let's see which option provides us with support for profit doubling.

(A) with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

This gives us reasons for why the cost would decrease. This gives good support to the conclusion that profit will double. Revenue will likely increase and cost will decrease. Certainly looks like profit will get a big push.

(B) with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants

If anything, this seems to say that the plants will withdraw more nutrition from the soil (perhaps explains why yield will reduce). It doesn't explain why profit may double.

(C) with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required

This is increasing the cost hence reducing profit, not increasing it.

(D) with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

This is something we can already infer from the given data. If rows are planted at half the distance, we can plant an extra row between every two rows and hence, almost doubling the number of plants. But we are also given that the yield will decrease. The option doesn't help explain why profit may double.

(E) with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted

Out of scope. We are talking about the yield in the year when the crop is planted.

Answer (A)
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,002
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,002
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 30 Jun 2022, 05:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
^^^^
ChiranjeevSingh AnishPassi KarishmaB zhanbo

Thus, with the information in (D) -- (D) allows for the possibility that revenues have increased by 70 % and profit/acre MORE THAN DOUBLED -- If the costs are low enough, an increase of revenues of 70 % is MORE THAN ENOUGH for profit/acre to double (> 100 % increase)

Why then is (D) still wrong when one could technically reach the desired result (of doubling profits/acre) within the parameters provided by (D) - it is mathematically possible to reach the goal .
Show more

You can, but does (D) support the doubling of profit? Whatever (D) says is something we can already infer from the argument. It provides no additional support for an increase in profit. The plants are doubling but the overall yield is not. We don't know how much the yield will be affected. If we move the other parameter (cost) also in favour of profit increasing, it increases our chances of profit doubling.
User avatar
vv65
User avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
395
Given Kudos: 774
Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 534
Kudos: 395
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 30 Jun 2022, 11:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2

Thus, with the information in (D) -- (D) allows for the possibility that revenues have increased by 70 % and profit/acre MORE THAN DOUBLED -- If the costs are low enough, an increase of revenues of 70 % is MORE THAN ENOUGH for profit/acre to double (> 100 % increase)
Show more
You are assuming fixed costs, regardless of the number of plants. And that is not a realistic assumption. As production increases, the cost of production usually increases too.

This is the argument:
Quote:
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ...
Show more
Fact 1: The farmer is planting double the number of plants.
Fact 2: Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plants.
Puzzling prediction: Nevertheless, corn growers will double their profits per acre
Question: When the number of plants is doubled, how will profits double EVEN THOUGH yield per plant will not double?

Answer choice D is wrong because it does not answer the above question.

One way that profits can double is if costs are less than double the old costs. Another way is if selling prices are higher.

Answer choice A tells us that costs will not increase proportionately. None of the other answers gives us any reason to justify the prediction of doubled profits.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
akhil0699
User avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2024
Last visit: 25 Oct 2025
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 10
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only 29 Jan 2025, 22:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Evaluating (A) vs. (D)
Option (A):

"With the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation."

This answer talks about reducing costs by decreasing the need for weed control and irrigation.
While cost savings can contribute to increased profit, the argument is about doubling profit per acre, which is a much larger effect.
This choice does not explain how yield per acre increases—it only addresses cost reductions.

✅ Helpful, but not a strong enough explanation for doubling profits.
Option (D) (Correct Answer):

"With the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double."

If spacing is reduced from 30 inches to 15 inches, it almost doubles the number of plants per acre.
Since more plants are growing per acre, total yield per acre increases, even though each plant produces less.
Higher total yield per acre → Higher total revenue per acre → Doubling of profits per acre.

✅ Directly explains why profits per acre will double, making it the best choice.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts