Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Feb 2017, 03:02

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2005, 18:24
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture. Thus, if we choose to sustain economic growth, which requires increasing agricultural production, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the agricultural economist's reasoning?

A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiveristy
B) Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiveristy
C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase
D) Preserving biodiveristy is no more important than increasing agricultural production
E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.

Are we looking to "strengthening" the author's conclusion? Or are we being asked to provide a premise that would better help us reach the conclusion? Is there a difference? I get confused when i see this type of question. Any help is greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions
New!
 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes e-GMAT Discount Codes
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2005, 18:34
This to me is a hidden assumption question.

A = Agriculture production increase
B = Biodiversity reduction
C = Use of conventional agriculture

Argument: He is saying (A can happen without B happening) ONLY IF C does not happen.

Conclusion: Therefore if we need D, which requires A, we need C not to happen.

For the conclusion to be valid, B must not happen when A happens.

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2005, 21:20
Agriculture is the basis of good economy.

Agriculture shouldnt compormise on BD but for that you need to shun the conventional farming....

B tells it all
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 352
Location: USA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2005, 07:39
I struggled with this one. My answer is B

I narrowed the choices to B and D. B seems to be the most plausible explanation. We are trying to further economic growth, but that it should not come at the expense of biodiversity. D is narrow in the sense, that it doesn't talk about economic growth. I may be wrong on this one.
Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2005, 07:50
I agree it has to be B.

A is out because the passage says nothing about increasing biodiversity
C makes it sound that the primary objective of the Agric. economist is to increase agric produciton by all means
D is out becuase no where in the stem was the preservation of biodiversity mentioned
E doesn't hold becuase it implies if x then y, if y then x which is not logical.
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2005, 05:05
AJB77 wrote:
This to me is a hidden assumption question.

A = Agriculture production increase
B = Biodiversity reduction
C = Use of conventional agriculture

Argument: He is saying (A can happen without B happening) ONLY IF C does not happen.

Conclusion: Therefore if we need D, which requires A, we need C not to happen.

For the conclusion to be valid, B must not happen when A happens.

AJB77, You seem to really understand these types of question very well and you have a very efficient methodology that I'd like to understand further.

Questions:

#1) From the argument we just know that A can happen without B happening. Our conclusion says that if we need D to happen the following conditions must be met:
- A needs to happen
- C needs to not happen

With this information at hand, how can we leap to the conclusion that A and B are mutually exclusive in order for the conclusion to happen?

Also would you mind trying your logic with the following question:

http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=17664
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2005, 06:05
gmataquaguy,

The argument states that (A and ~B) => C and then says by the above logic and the fact that D => A (D = Economic growth) the conclusion is the D => C

Therefore we can see that this argument would be most strengthened if it changes into ( D and ~B) => C

---

I'm not saying that A and B are mutually exclusive. They may or may not be true. What we DO know is that A alone or ~B alone do not necessarily imply that C is true. But the one statement we are given is:

IF (A and ~B) THEN C
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2005, 09:37
Ah i see!!! Good Stuff.

We are also making a small implicit assumption that abandon conventional agriculture (from premise) = radically modify agricultural techniques (from conclusion).
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 373
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2005, 17:00
gmataquaguy wrote:
We are also making a small implicit assumption that abandon conventional agriculture (from premise) = radically modify agricultural techniques (from conclusion).
Yes, but that is a minor assumption IMO.
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2005, 17:50
ABJ,
Thanks a bunch for the conceptual clarification. I appreciate your help.

regards,
gmataquaguy
05 Jul 2005, 17:50
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 In area that is both agricultural and residential in nature 5 23 Mar 2014, 13:13
3 Federal agricultural programs aimed at benefiting one group 10 14 Jan 2010, 17:22
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can 13 11 Jun 2008, 05:58
Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural 7 29 Sep 2007, 20:18
2 The Agricultural Board of a western European country 7 12 Jun 2007, 05:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by