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

 It is currently 11 Dec 2018, 02:16

### 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 December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

December 11, 2018

December 11, 2018

09:00 PM EST

10:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. December 11 at 9 PM EST.
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

December 13, 2018

December 13, 2018

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

# for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using th

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2015
Posts: 35

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2016, 06:36
11
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

37% (02:02) correct 63% (02:00) wrong based on 239 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using the Wheat Field Productivity Index (WFPI), which is equal to the average number of pounds of grain harvested per acre of wheat. In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI. In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's. Therefore, Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

Which of the following, IF TRUE, provides strongest support for the conclusion above?

A. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of acres of wheat planted in both Maltania and Italy has increased by same rate.
B. In 2006, Malatania received 20% more sunshine than usual.
C. Between 2005 and 2006, Italy's wheat field productivity decreased by 10 pound per acre.
D. In 2006, Italy experienced its worst drought in decades,
E. In 2006, Malatania began subsidizing all of its wheat farmer.

I looking for some good discussion, will post the official explanation 10 reasoned responses and discussion.
Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 37
Re: for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 May 2016, 10:24
5

In 2005: M = I + 60
In 2006: M = I' + 75

I' = I - 10

=> In 2006: M = I - 10 + 75 = I + 65. Therefore more than in 2005.

Hope this helps.
##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 358
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Re: for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 01:20
sameerspice wrote:
for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using the Wheat Field Productivity Index (WFPI), which is equal to the average number of pounds of grain harvested per acre of wheat. In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI. In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's. Therefore, Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

Which of the following, IF TRUE, provides strongest support for the conclusion above?

A. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of acres of wheat planted in both Maltania and Italy has increased by same rate.
B. In 2006, Malatania received 20% more sunshine than usual.
C. Between 2005 and 2006, Italy's wheat field productivity decreased by 10 pound per acre.
D. In 2006, Italy experienced its worst drought in decades,
E. In 2006, Malatania began subsidizing all of its wheat farmer.

I looking for some good discussion, will post the official explanation 10 reasoned responses and discussion.

If Italy's production has decreased how does that prove that Malatania's production has increased?
In order to prove that Malatania's production per acre has increased we need to prove that Italy's prodcution has remained same or that Italy didnt drastically increase its number of acres it planted wheat?
Manager
Status: Manager to Damager!
Affiliations: MBA
Joined: 22 May 2014
Posts: 68
Location: United States

### Show Tags

14 May 2016, 04:30
Decrease in Italy's wheat field productivity has no relation to the productivity of Malania..
C is definitely wrong...

B or E can be taken as strengthening points "with some assumptions"..

Can some CR/verbal experts comment on this CR question?

sameerspice , Could you please post official explanation for the answer choices?
Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Posts: 2

### Show Tags

14 May 2016, 06:18
For Maltnia's Productivity to increase, You have to make sure that Italy's Productivity doesn't fall below than 60 P/A.Option C exactly make sure of that. All you have to do is not to fall in to a trap word ‘ decrease' 'cau its a small decrease.
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 60
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.44
Re: for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using th  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 May 2016, 09:04
Ram025 wrote:
For Maltnia's Productivity to increase, You have to make sure that Italy's Productivity doesn't fall below than 60 P/A.Option C exactly make sure of that. All you have to do is not to fall in to a trap word ‘ decrease' 'cau its a small decrease.

C is wrong, I tell you why

for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using the Wheat Field Productivity Index (WFPI), which is equal to the average number of pounds of grain harvested per acre of wheat. In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI. In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's. Therefore, Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

Conclusion is that Malta's productivity has increased
Fact 1: In 2005--M=I+60
Fact2 : In 2006--M=I +75

therefore, to increase productivity M= I+75+(x)--> where x is the increase in productivity
C says that I has decreased its producivity by 10%
so it may be M=I+75-x as well as M=I+75+x

So C is clearly flawed.

I chose B because 20% more sunshine means more productivity. Though I assumed that I has same sunshine as before and high sunshine=high productivity.
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2014
Posts: 66
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
Schools: Duke '21
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.8
WE: Other (Other)

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2018, 19:50
sameerspice wrote:
for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using the Wheat Field Productivity Index (WFPI), which is equal to the average number of pounds of grain harvested per acre of wheat. In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI. In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's. Therefore, Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

Which of the following, IF TRUE, provides strongest support for the conclusion above?

A. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of acres of wheat planted in both Maltania and Italy has increased by same rate.
B. In 2006, Malatania received 20% more sunshine than usual.
C. Between 2005 and 2006, Italy's wheat field productivity decreased by 10 pound per acre.
D. In 2006, Italy experienced its worst drought in decades,
E. In 2006, Malatania began subsidizing all of its wheat farmer.

I looking for some good discussion, will post the official explanation 10 reasoned responses and discussion.

Break Argument:
In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI
In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's
Conclution:
Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

This is definitely a weak argument.
Example:
2005: M=500; I= 440
2006: M=400; I=325
=>weaken

Here is why C strenthens argument

Author reasoning is that
M05 and M06: wheat field productivity of M in 2005 and 2006
I05 and I06: wheat field productivity of N in 2005 and 2006
M05-I05=60
M06-I06=75
I05=I06+10
=>M06-M05=I06+75-I05-60=I06+15-I06-10=5>0. With C, M06 always larger than M05.
_________________

Kudo is nothing but encouragement!

Intern
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Posts: 41
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V33

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2018, 04:34
3
Let me explain this to you.

For decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using the Wheat Field Productivity Index (WFPI), which is equal to the average number of pounds of grain harvested per acre of wheat. In 2005, Mlatnia's WFPI was 60 pound per acre more than Italy's WFPI. In 2006, Maltania's WFPI was 75 pound per acre more than Italy's. Therefore, Malania's wheat field productivity must have increased during that period.

Which of the following, IF TRUE, provides strongest support for the conclusion above?

A. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of acres of wheat planted in both Maltania and Italy has increased by same rate.
B. In 2006, Malatania received 20% more sunshine than usual.
C. Between 2005 and 2006, Italy's wheat field productivity decreased by 10 pound per acre.
D. In 2006, Italy experienced its worst drought in decades,
E. In 2006, Malatania began subsidizing all of its wheat farmer.

Explanation : In the argument presented, the conclusion is that Maltania's WFPI increased during the period from 2005 to 2006. We need to find the statement that strengthens the conclusion. Now, look at the figures mentioned in the argument closely. In 2005, Maltania's WFPI was 60 pound/acre more than that of Italy.
In 2006, the difference grew bigger with Maltania's WFPI 75 pound/acre more than that of Italy.

Let us now look at the answer choice C first. It says that Italy's WFPI actually decreased by 10 pound/acre.
But if you notice the difference in the increase from 2005 and 2006, it is 15 pound/acre. So, if Italy's WFPI decreased by 10 pound/acre, so if WFPI of
maltania remained the same, the difference would have been 70 pound/acre. But as per the argument, it is 75 pound/acre. So, for that to happen, the WFPI
of maltania has to increase.

Thanks !
Pass on Kudos please if you like my response !
Manager
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Posts: 108
GPA: 3.56
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2018, 05:48
[color=#ec008c][wrapimg=Let me explain this to you.
........
......
Explanation : In the argument presented, the conclusion is that Maltania's WFPI increased during the period from 2005 to 2006. We need to find the statement that strengthens the conclusion. Now, look at the figures mentioned in the argument closely. In 2005, Maltania's WFPI was 60 pound/acre more than that of Italy.
In 2006, the difference grew bigger with Maltania's WFPI 75 pound/acre more than that of Italy.

Let us now look at the answer choice C first. It says that Italy's WFPI actually decreased by 10 pound/acre.
But if you notice the difference in the increase from 2005 and 2006, it is 15 pound/acre. So, if Italy's WFPI decreased by 10 pound/acre, so if WFPI of
maltania remained the same, the difference would have been 70 pound/acre. But as per the argument, it is 75 pound/acre. So, for that to happen, the WFPI
of maltania has to increase.]

Thanks !
Pass on Kudos please if you like my response !

[/wrapimg][/color]

Thanks for the explanation.
This is more clear and hence more convincing.

In a CR question no will like to think or pick up numbers and do math as explained in some of the posts here. However, noticing the difference within given numbers is quite a feasible approach.

Thanks.
for decades, countries have measured wheat field productivity using th &nbs [#permalink] 18 Jul 2018, 05:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by