GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 08:04

### 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

# Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 13
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2011, 21:01
7
31
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (02:10) correct 71% (02:18) wrong based on 1095 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A. Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
B. In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion.
C. Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.
D. The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage.
E. On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8399
Location: Pune, India
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2014, 23:09
19
3
Macsen wrote:
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A. Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
B. In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion.
C. Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.
D. The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage.
E. On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply.

Responding to a pm:

The argument is about what the farmers should do and not about what they want to do. Hence option (A) is out of scope.

Premises:
Deep tillage causes top soil erosion.
Farmers who till deeply are 10 times more likely to lose top soil than farmers who don't till.

Conclusion:
Farmers should use no till methods for top soil aeration.

Look at the last sentence: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.
This tell us that tilling is a 'top soil aeration technique'. Tilling deeply is bad so farmers should use no till methods. The author has jumped from deep tilling to no till. He says that just don't till at all since deep tilling is bad for top soil. He assumes that there are no methods of tilling (which may not be bad for top soil) other than deep tilling.

Therefore, the assumption of the author is "Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option."

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 137
GPA: 3.5

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 22:01
5
1
No problem,Macsen.

In the last statement of the paragraph the author has used the word strive which means to try very hard.

Deep tillage causes soil erosion on the farmers own land and still they are not using the other aeration techniques and the author believes farmers have to strive hard to start using them which means they must be non-viable to the farmers(they could be expensive or inaccessible).

I hope this helps.
##### General Discussion
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 645
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 01:30
I got wrong answer choice A. Wait for explanation.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 137
GPA: 3.5

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 03:22
1
C.Farmers are already aware that deep tilling techniques are harming their top soil
Quote:
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed

Still they continue to use the old tilling method assuming that other methods available are not so viable.
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 13

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 05:52
tuanquang269 wrote:
I got wrong answer choice A. Wait for explanation.

I got A as my choice too, but dont understand why it is wrong. Also, where does it imply, in any angle, about the viable methods of tilling?
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 137
GPA: 3.5

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 09:11
3
A cannot be the option, as it suggests that farmers are reluctant to use deep tilling method in their fields,but the entire paragraph is contrary to the same and it points to the fact that farmers are still using deep tilling which causes soil erosion.
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 13

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2011, 09:57
goalset wrote:
A cannot be the option, as it suggests that farmers are reluctant to use deep tilling method in their fields,but the entire paragraph is contrary to the same and it points to the fact that farmers are still using deep tilling which causes soil erosion.

Thanks for helping me understand the right choice, Goalset.
But, let me ask one more thing with this regard - how come we assume that any of top soil aeration techniques (as mentioned in the last time) are not viable methods of deep-tillage?
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 101
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V37

### Show Tags

26 Dec 2011, 09:56
1
There is a argument presenting a case for use of non tilling method for aeriation.
So what can be the fact based on which author is stressing her point .
A ) yes could be as she is trying to stop them as they don’t care about top soil erosion
B ) this info cannot be concluded
So I hope it’s A) why its not is bit beyond me
Intern
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Posts: 40

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2012, 23:10
C .
A X because qn is already stating that some farmers are doing that for better aeration but it is suggested but it suggested to diverse the method. It is nowhere implied that erosion is causing as disincentive to the farmers and are not able to do so.
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 43

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2012, 22:55
1
Macsen wrote:
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A. Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
B. In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion.
C. Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.
D. The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage.
E. On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply.

conclusion : farmers should incorporate no till methods in place of deep till methods by using other top soil aeration technique
premise : farmers using deep tillage are ten times more likely to loose top in comparison to non tillage method

what if there being a case tht ""to prevent top soil erosion, one has to till deeper . Thus a possible assumption here would negate this answer choice and that's what option A does. So in my opinion A
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 127
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.61
WE: Consulting (Manufacturing)
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2014, 18:56
goalset wrote:
C.Farmers are already aware that deep tilling techniques are harming their top soil
Quote:
Deep tillage is even more deleterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed

Still they continue to use the old tilling method assuming that other methods available are not so viable.

Hi goalset,

I agree with your explanation. But isn't this assumption made by the Farmers ?
Why do farmers keep on using the older method of tilling soil ? Because they assume other methods are not viable.

Whereas I was searching for the assumption of author.

The conclusion of the author is "Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead."
Here, it is 100% clear that author believes other tillage methods are viable.

Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 127
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.61
WE: Consulting (Manufacturing)
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2014, 02:21
[Responding to a pm:

The argument is about what the farmers should do and not about what they want to do. Hence option (A) is out of scope.

Premises:
Deep tillage causes top soil erosion.
Farmers who till deeply are 10 times more likely to lose top soil than farmers who don't till.

Conclusion:
Farmers should use no till methods for top soil aeration.

Look at the last sentence: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.
This tell us that tilling is a 'top soil aeration technique'. Tilling deeply is bad so farmers should use no till methods. The author has jumped from deep tilling to no till. He says that just don't till at all since deep tilling is bad for top soil. He assumes that there are no methods of tilling (which may not be bad for top soil) other than deep tilling.

Therefore, the assumption of the author is "Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option."

Karishma's explanation proves that we should always go for explanations from experts. The explanations above are not correct.
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 862
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2014, 07:56
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
Macsen wrote:
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

A. Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
B. In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion.
C. Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.
D. The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage.
E. On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply.

Responding to a pm:

The argument is about what the farmers should do and not about what they want to do. Hence option (A) is out of scope.

Karishma,

If the option A) would be:
Topsoil erosion does not make farmers till more deeply.

Does the option correct?

I can understand why option C) is correct though.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal

My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8399
Location: Pune, India
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2014, 01:48
1
kinjiGC wrote:
Karishma,

If the option A) would be:
Topsoil erosion does not make farmers till more deeply.

Does the option correct?

I can understand why option C) is correct though.

To be honest, if there were an option like this, it would be silly. We know that top soil erosion is bad for the soil and hence for the farmers. Why would they till more deeply if top soil erosion happens because of tilling. The option (A), as given has been given to confuse you. It is something so basic that obviously it is true. But the argument doesn't talk about what the farmers want to do and hence this is out of scope for us.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Status: PLAY HARD OR GO HOME
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Posts: 150
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Mannheim
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V22
GPA: 3.1
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2014, 04:53
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
kinjiGC wrote:
Karishma,

If the option A) would be:
Topsoil erosion does not make farmers till more deeply.

Does the option correct?

I can understand why option C) is correct though.

To be honest, if there were an option like this, it would be silly. We know that top soil erosion is bad for the soil and hence for the farmers. Why would they till more deeply if top soil erosion happens because of tilling. The option (A), as given has been given to confuse you. It is something so basic that obviously it is true. But the argument doesn't talk about what the farmers want to do and hence this is out of scope for us.

Hello mam,
in conclusion its said that farmers should opt for other techniques instead of tilling to avoid soil erosion..

this assumes that farmers are reluctant to soil erosion..

Negation of A would be-
top soil erosion makes farmers till more deeply

this negation directly affects the conclusion wich states that farmers should opt other methods to avoid erosion...

and,when we negate option C,we get-

Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is a viable option.

this sentence does nothing to our conclusion..it might strenghthen the conclusion in stead of weakening it..

_________________

ITS NOT OVER , UNTIL I WIN ! I CAN, AND I WILL .PERIOD.

Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 175
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2014, 10:45
+1 A

Statement:- "Deep tillage is even more deleterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed..."

A. Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.
B. In deep-tillage farming, the deeper one tills, the greater the susceptibility to topsoil erosion. -"...farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods.."
C. Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option. - "...using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods..."
D. The most expensive farming methods employ topsoil aeration techniques other than deep tillage. - Paragraph does not discuss cost.
E. On average, topsoil that is no-tilled is more aerated than topsoil that is tilled deeply. - "...farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods.."
_________________

Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 20
Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2014, 15:33
My 2 cents

-- Conclusion is stated by the author..... "Farmers must strive to incorporate No-till methods"
a) Negated - "Topsoil erosion does make farmers want to till more deeply"....so what ? Still the conclusion stated by author is not weakened that "Farmers must strive to incorporate No-till methods", The conclusion stated by author still holds good that topsoil erosion is bad and farmers must use no till methods
b) Its already stated in the passage
c) correct - if negated, There are some other methods other than "no-till" methods that will give the same effect.

Kudos if you like my explanation
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 226
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2014, 20:30
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

Responding to a pm:

The argument is about what the farmers should do and not about what they want to do. Hence option (A) is out of scope.

Premises:
Deep tillage causes top soil erosion.
Farmers who till deeply are 10 times more likely to lose top soil than farmers who don't till.

Conclusion:
Farmers should use no till methods for top soil aeration.

Look at the last sentence: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.
This tell us that tilling is a 'top soil aeration technique'. Tilling deeply is bad so farmers should use no till methods. The author has jumped from deep tilling to no till. He says that just don't till at all since deep tilling is bad for top soil. He assumes that there are no methods of tilling (which may not be bad for top soil) other than deep tilling.

Therefore, the assumption of the author is "Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option."

So Karishma would my understanding be correct that between the spectrum of deep tilling method ( say 100 % tilling) to a no till method ( 0%) , there is no other viable method and thus this is the assumption ?

The reason I opted for A was that deep soil tilling is leading to a negative feedback in the soil ecosystem and the farmer is constrained to till deeper for next crop so that , say , all the nutrients etc are available to the second crop. In other words deep tilling in crop # 1 is aggravating the condition of soil , thereby compelling the farmer to dig deeper for crop#2
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8399
Location: Pune, India
Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2014, 20:57
himanshujovi wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:

Responding to a pm:

The argument is about what the farmers should do and not about what they want to do. Hence option (A) is out of scope.

Premises:
Deep tillage causes top soil erosion.
Farmers who till deeply are 10 times more likely to lose top soil than farmers who don't till.

Conclusion:
Farmers should use no till methods for top soil aeration.

Look at the last sentence: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.
This tell us that tilling is a 'top soil aeration technique'. Tilling deeply is bad so farmers should use no till methods. The author has jumped from deep tilling to no till. He says that just don't till at all since deep tilling is bad for top soil. He assumes that there are no methods of tilling (which may not be bad for top soil) other than deep tilling.

Therefore, the assumption of the author is "Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option."

So Karishma would my understanding be correct that between the spectrum of deep tilling method ( say 100 % tilling) to a no till method ( 0%) , there is no other viable method and thus this is the assumption ?

The reason I opted for A was that deep soil tilling is leading to a negative feedback in the soil ecosystem and the farmer is constrained to till deeper for next crop so that , say , all the nutrients etc are available to the second crop. In other words deep tilling in crop # 1 is aggravating the condition of soil , thereby compelling the farmer to dig deeper for crop#2

Yes, since the author believes that deep tilling is bad, he concludes that no-till methods should be used hence assuming that tilling methods other than deep tilling are not viable.

As I said before, option (A) is out of scope of our argument. The author is discussing what should be done and why. He is not considering and hence not assuming what the farmers may want to do.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Re: Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil &nbs [#permalink] 31 Jul 2014, 20:57

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Deep tillage is even more deliterious to the world's topsoil

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.