Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat

Question

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

'A very similar question exists in Verbal OG: https://gmatclub.com/forum/gortland-has ... 12544.html

Official Guide 12 Question

Question: 28
Page: 37
Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The conclusion is that "Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both". Let's take a look at how the author arrives at that conclusion:

"Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat." - This means that Gortland has just enough grain and meat to meet (no pun intended) its demand without having to rely on imports. 
 "Per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average" - So the average income per person has been increasing. 
 Because of this increase in average income, meat consumption per person has also increased. 
 "It takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat." 
 The author thus concludes that Gortland will not be able to sustain itself. They will either need to import more meat to fill the increased demand or import more grain in order to produce the additional meat on their own.

But are those the only possible situations? In order for the author's argument to hold, we have to assume one of the following:

If meat consumption increases, we will either need to use more grain to produce that meat or import the meat from somewhere else. Even if grain production remains relatively stable, we still have to deal with the increase in demand for meat. Choice (A) would STRENGTHEN the author's argument, but it is not a  required  assumption. Eliminate (A).

We are not concerned with the effect of importing grain or meat on prices or personal budgets. The author is only trying to argue that the increase in meat consumption will create a need to import some grain or meat. Choice (B) is not relevant to this argument and can be eliminated.

It doesn't matter how meat consumption is DISTRIBUTED across income levels. All that matters is that AVERAGE meat consumption per person has increased. So maybe only the wealthiest citizens of Gortland (say, the top 25%) have started eating more meat. Such an increase would raise overall PER CAPITA meat consumption (average per person for the whole population), so Gortland will still need to produce more meat or import it from elsewhere to fill the increased demand. Choice (C) is not a required assumption.

We don't care how per capita income of meat producers compares to per capita income of grain producers. We are already told that AVERAGE income is increasing and that, as a result, AVERAGE meat consumption is also increasing. How the income increases are distributed doesn't matter as long as overall per capita income is increasing. Choice (D) is not a required assumption.

The author rightly reasons that if Gortland wants to fill the demand for meat on its own, it will need to use more grain to produce that meat. This is a problem if grain consumption remains constant. We currently have just enough grain to meet the demand for grain, so if we need to use more grain to produce meat, we won't have enough grain.

But that logic is only valid if GRAIN consumption remains constant. What if grain consumption significantly decreases? Yes, we will need more grain to produce the meat, but we'll need LESS grain for personal grain consumption. In that case, the two factors could balance each other out, and Gortland might not need to import grain or meat at all.

The author's argument relies on the assumption that people in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain, so (E) is the best answer.

cvaddamani · Answer

Choice E says people will NOT radically decrease consumption of grain - which means the demand could remain the same (if not increased). It is also stated that it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, and if the consumption of meat increases, it implies that the need for grain automatically increases. And if people do not reduce the consumption of grain, they could fall short of grains (to get the meat), which could call for import of the grains too !!

Cheers !!

surbab · Answer

E is the answer. If the meat consumption increases, the grain consumption should come down, which will offset partially the production of meat. But if it doesn't happen, then the import becomes necessary

Mishari · Answer

Most answers are either out-of-scope or are not really an assumption made to derive to the conclusion, except E.

Prod: production, Cons: consumption

Must be:  Grain Prod + Meat Prod = Meat Cons + Grain Cons 
Grain Prod : SAME
Grain Cons: NO IDEA
Meat Prod: SAME
Meat Cons: UP

In order for the equation to be valid, grain consumption must decrease. Since the author suggest importing grain or meat or both, then he must've assumed that grain consumption will not decrease to balance the equation of production and consumption. 

ANSWER:  E

subhashghosh · Answer

B and E are the ones to be considered. I chose E over B because on a second look at B,if the popultation growth is negated then we havt to consider both rise and fall in population, and these two may have different effects on the argument. For example, if population decreases while total meat consumed is same, the per capita consumption increases and if population groth increases while total meat consumed is same, the per capita consumption decreases.

E states that if both grains and fruits are consumed at an increasing rate, there will be a shortage making import of both necessary.

E states that if both grains and fruits are consumed at an increasing rate, there will be a shortage making import of both necessary.

Zarrolou · Answer

We know that both the income and the meat consumption are rising, we can say that with an higher income their have more money to spend on meat as well. But this could be an inference, not an assumption.

Option C
 (C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels

is not an assumption (hence something necessary for the argument to be valid); the conclusion is  "Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both"  and even if we negate C "the per capita cons is NOT the same" the argument still holds true.

Even if the richest consume more meat than the others (for example), still Gortland will have to import one thing or both. Keep in mind that the assumption is something necessary, so if you negate an option and still the conclusion is valid=>the option is not the assumption we're looking for.

Aldorado · Answer

The argument clearly says that the production of meat depends on the amount of grain available. That means, if the consumption of grain decreases and thereby increasing the amount of grain available for meat production, meat production will ultimately increase. Hence, no need to import either grain or meat. Hope it makes sense :-)

CLIMBTHELADDER · Answer

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

Conclusion: Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both.

Premise(s): As per capita income rises, so will per capita consumption of meat. It takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, and domestic grain production will not increase. So Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both.

Prephrase: Let’s try to identify a possible assumption before answering the answer choices. It’s hard to identify one, so I think we’re working with a defender assumption. Let’s use the assumption negation technique and see which one weakens the argument the most. Using the assumption negation technique in the answer choices we can try and find the assumption on which the argument depends.

a) If grain production in Gortland will not soon decrease – Gortland will have to import either grain or meat or both. Thus, grain production in Portland will not increase, nor decrease, this keeps the premise intact and therefore doesn’t weaken the argument. 
b) Importing either grain or meat will result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders incomes being spent on food than is currently the case. Thus, food consumption will rise, therefore per capita consumption of meat is also likely to increase. Doesn’t weaken. 
c) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is not increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels. Thus different income levels have different levels of meat consumption. But it’s still increasing, so it still keeps the premises in check. 
d) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is not rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers. The income of the meat producers themselves isn’t relevant. Therefore out of scope. 
e) People in Portland who increase their consumption of meat will radically decrease their consumption of grain. If people in Portland decrease their consumption of grain, then Gortland will no longer have to import either grain or meat or both.

Therefore, answer choice E is correct. As it weakens the argument the most and is therefore the underlying assumption that holds the entire frigging thing together.

Princ · Answer

nightblade354   Bunuel

In this thread,two questions are being discussed. Argument,question stem and OA are same for both questions but options are different.

1st Question
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

2 nd 
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially. 
(B) The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing prosperity. 
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is roughly the same across all income levels. 
(D) In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

Is possible to have seperate threads for these 2 questions?

nightblade354 · Answer

Princ ,

The topics have been split and the second question has been posted here.

I understand the confusion, so good job pointing it out.

-- Mod Nightblade

akbgmatter · Answer

Conclusion : Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both

(A) The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.
Irrelevant to the conclusion; eliminate
(B) Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.
Irrelevant to the conclusion; eliminate
(C) The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.
If it's increasing across all income levels or not is irrelevant. We're concerned and are already told about the net per capita increase; Eliminate
(D) The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.
Income is irrelevant to the argument; Eliminate
(E) People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.
Correct; If people will radically decrease their consumption of grain then the conclusion of importing grain/meat or both falls apart.

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.

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat

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

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat

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