Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in

Question

Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in order to guarantee an adequate domestic production of them. But subsidies encourage more intensive farming, which eventually leads to soil exhaustion and drastically reduced yields.

The situation above is most nearly similar to which one of the following situations with respect to the relationship between the declared intent of a government practice and a circumstance relevant to it?

(A) Certain governments subsidize theaters in order to attract foreign tourists. But tourists rarely choose a destination for the theatrical performances it has to offer.

(B) Certain governments restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business. But, since domestic producers do not have to face the full force of foreign competition, some domestic producers are able to earn inordinately high profits.

(C) Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict, but in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.

(D) Certain governments reduce taxes on business in order to stimulate private investment. But any investment is to some extent a gamble, and new business ventures are not always as successful as their owners hoped.

(E) Certain governments pass traffic laws in order to make travel safer. But the population-driven growth in volumes of traffic often has the effect of making travel less safe despite the passage of new traffic laws.

KapTeacherEli · Answer

Subsidies are meant to increase yields, but in the long term directly cause their decrease; the most similar in reasoning is (C), which has forces intended to maintain peace end up requiring armed conflict. Both are similar in reasoning becasue both describe a course of action having the opposite of its intended effect.. (B) goes from "some profit" to "too much profit," and so is not parallel to the other two.

Note also that the "most similar in reasoning" question type is extremely rare on the GMAT. I have seen such questions before, so they are worth looking at, but an average LSAT will have about four of these, compared to the average GMAT which probably has about 0.5. Be careful when using LSAT materials as they may give you a skewed sense of priorities!

nverma · Answer

IMO, the most important thing here is to understand that the action taken by the government is actually hampering the objective in the long run rather than achieving it.  So we have to find an option where, an action intended to a have a desired effect actually nullify/negates the effect.

In B. government is trying to restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business and  some  domestic businesses  are making a profitable business . so an action intended to a have a desired effect do not nullify/negates the effect.

silasaaa2 · Answer

(B) Certain governments restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business. But, since domestic producers do not have to face the full force of foreign competition, some domestic producers are able to earn inordinately high profits.
(C) Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict, but in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.

question: government action->subsidize-> domestic production backfires due to intensive farming

ans b : government action ->restrict imports to keep domestic producers in business it gives more returns to domestic producers

so ans B is not correct

C)armed forces to avoid conflict but to keep them strong they require combat periodically

thought not my fav. choice only it comes close

garimavyas · Answer

the reasoning in C is justified , the measure taken to avoid an event , becomes a catalyst for that event itself.got this one totally wrong.

auradediligodo · Answer

Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in order to guarantee an adequate domestic production of them. But subsidies encourage more intensive farming, which eventually leads to soil exhaustion and drastically reduced yields.

The situation above is most nearly similar to which one of the following situations with respect to the relationship between the declared intent of a government practice and a circumstance relevant to it?

Analogous statement question

Pre-thinking

The government does something and it expects something good out of it. However, something bad happens as opposite.

POE:

(A) Certain governments subsidize theaters in order to attract foreign tourists. But tourists rarely choose a destination for the theatrical performances it has to offer.
 The second part is wrong

(B) Certain governments restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business. But, since domestic producers do not have to face the full force of foreign competition, some domestic producers are able to earn inordinately high profits.
 The second part does not show the negative consequence

(C)   Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict, but in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.
 good intent and bad consequence are present. Correct

(D) Certain governments reduce taxes on business in order to stimulate private investment. But any investment is to some extent a gamble, and new business ventures are not always as successful as their owners hoped.
 The second part represent a could be negative scenario while the original argument present a negative real consequence

(E) Certain governments pass traffic laws in order to make travel safer. But the population-driven growth in volumes of traffic often has the effect of making travel less safe despite the passage of new traffic laws.
 the second part present a negative consequence that is not related with the first part

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB  Ma'am,

The reasoning in the original statement is that Government does a good action and the consequence of this action is bad.

Doesn't this apply in Option A? Government subsidized the theatres to increase the tourists, but the tourists didn't choose the destination that subsidized the theatres.

Furthermore, How is C better than E? There is no negative consequence in C but there is one in E. Govt. passed safety laws, but the population driven growth made traffic less safe. 
Please throw some light.

KarishmaB · Answer

Govts subsidise products to guarantee an adequate domestic production of them.
But subsidies lead to intensive farming which reduces yields (reduces production)

So subsidies have an effect opposite to what is hoped. Subsidies are given to increase production but they lead to reduced production (because yields drop)

Only (C) has the same logic:

(C) Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict, but in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.

Strong armed forces are build to discourage armed conflict. But to keep armed forces strong, they must be used in actual combat periodically. So the very reason for which armed forces are kept strong (i.e. peace) is negated because armed forces need combat to stay strong.

(A) Certain governments subsidize theaters in order to attract foreign tourists. But tourists rarely choose a destination for the theatrical performances it has to offer.

This says that the Govt gives subsidies to attract foreign tourists but foreign tourists do not get attracted. It doesn't say that these subsidies have an opposite effect and tourists don't come because of them. It says that the subsidies have no effect.

unraveled · Answer

It was between C and E. 
The logic is that something is done in order to achieve a goal but it eventually backfires with time, leading to failure of that action. Note that there's an equivalent opposite reaction(result actually) without any diversion.

E loses out for it gives another reason behind that backfiring. It was population-driven growth that leads to less safe travel not govt's passing of those traffic laws.
C does that job smoothly and is the answer thus.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Certain governments subsidize certain basic agricultural products in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards