Health advocate: The governments current farm-subsidy system primaril

Question

Health advocate: The government’s current farm-subsidy system primarily rewards large farms for planting monocultures of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. Most of the crops produced in this way go to feed livestock in factory farms, which results in a glut of fatty meats in the marketplace. A large proportion of such crops that are not used to feed livestock are used to make sugary processed foods. These subsidies promote unhealthy diets by making sugary foods and fatty meats artificially cheap. Obviously, it is important for the government to avoid these effects.

The bolded words are what you need. It is saying that the subsidies are bad (and should be changed) because they promote unhealthy diets (so getting rid of these subsidies should better people's diets).

On the basis of the information above, select  Recommends  for the option that describes the government action that the health advocate most likely recommends, and select  Intended result  for the option that describes what the health advocate likely hopes will be the result of that action. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 100429

ChiranjeevSingh · Accepted Answer

Understanding the Passage   
 Health advocate: The government’s current farm-subsidy system primarily rewards large farms for planting monocultures of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. 
 
 Health Advocate (HA) is the author here. 
 The government has a farm-subsidy program 
 The program primarily rewards LARGE farms for planing certain crops.

Most of the crops produced in this way go to feed livestock in factory farms, which results in a glut of fatty meats in the marketplace. 
 
 MOST crops produced this way (this way likely means monocultures of the four crops) are used as feed for livestock in factory farms. 
 This results in an abundance of fatty meats in the marketplace. 
 This statement presents a problem with the crops produced with the help of the government’s subsidy program. The problem is the presence of excess fat in the meats of livestock fed on such crops.

A large proportion of such crops that are not used to feed livestock are used to make sugary processed foods. 
 
 Out of the remaining crops, a large proportion is used to make sugary processed foods. 
 This seems to be another problem related to the crops produced with the help of the government's subsidy program. (I am calling it a problem because I know, from common knowledge, that sugary processed foods are not good for health. Besides, the context so far supports this interpretation. As I read the next statement, I see that the next statement makes this connection clear. Thus, one doesn’t need to have this common knowledge to understand this text.)

These subsidies promote unhealthy diets by making sugary foods and fatty meats artificially cheap. 
 
 Using the above two statements, HA makes a claim that the subsidies promote unhealthy diets by
 
 making sugary foods artificially cheap 
 making fatty meats artificially cheap   
 How do subsidies make these things artificially cheap? 
 By providing subsidies, the government brings down the costs of the producers. Thus, these products become ‘artificially’ cheap. (Against something that is naturally cheap because of being abundant in nature or inexpensive to produce)

Obviously, it is important for the government to avoid these effects. 
 
 Avoiding these effects is important for the government. Which effects? 
 The last statement talks about the promotion of unhealthy diets because of artificially cheap sugary foods and fatty meats. However, this is one effect, not multiple effects. 
 The other effects could be referring to the second and third statements of the passage.

Overall, this passage by HA says that the government’s farm-subsidy program leads to certain outcomes whose avoidance is important to the government.
    Understanding the Question Stem

On the basis of the information above, select Recommends for the option that describes the government action that the health advocate most likely recommends, 
 
 We’re looking for an option that tells us what government action that HA most likely recommends. (Given our understanding of the passage, one recommendation could be changing the existing farm-subsidy program so that it doesn’t lead to the stated problems)

and select Intended for the option that describes what the health advocate likely hopes will be the result of that action. Make only two selections, one in each column. 
 
 We’re looking for an option that is hoped to be the likely result of the action  
As I evaluate the options, I will first look for the recommended action and then, based on that, will look for the intended result of that action.
    Evaluating the Options

A. Improve the overall quality of livestock feed. 
 
 The existing livestock feed is identified as a problem since it leads to fatty meats in the market and thus negatively impacts people's health. 
 Thus, it makes sense to recommend improving the overall quality of livestock feed. 
 However, improving the quality of livestock can be a GOAL but cannot be an ACTION. 
 Thus, this can be the answer to the second part but not the first part.

B. Improve the overall quality of people's diets. 
 
 Unhealthy diet is identified as a problem 
 Thus, it makes sense to recommend this option. 
 However, like A, B can be a GOAL but cannot be an ACTION. 
 Between A and B, B is more likely to be the goal since B will include A. In other words, improving the quality of people’s diets will include improving the overall quality of livestock feed since the existing livestock feed leads to fatty meats (low-quality people's diet). 
 Besides, HA uses the quality of livestock feed to discuss its impact on people’s diets. Thus, the quality of people’s diets is the main concern of HA. 
 I’ll keep this option on hold for “Intended Result.”

C. Reduce the overall financial cost of people's diets. 
 
 This option is incorrect. 
 HA suggests that the existing diet is cheap and unhealthy and suggests a path that may  increase  the cost of people’s diets.

D. Prevent the manufacture of sugary processed food. 
 
 This option is incorrect. 
 While the crops produced with the help of the farm subsidy program help manufacture sugary processed food, we’re not told that these crops are the ONLY raw material for such food. 
 Thus, the passage is not about “preventing” the manufacture of sugary processed food. (preventing the manufacture means no manufacturing anymore)

E. Change the farm-subsidy system. 
 
 This option seems most suitable to be the recommended action. 
 Given the flow of the passage, farm-subsidy leads to two outcomes - fatty meats and sugary processed foods. These things then harm people’s diets. 
 Thus, changing the farm-subsidy program will solve the problems discussed in the passage. 
 Also, this is an ACTION that the government can take. 
 Given our evaluation of the remaining option, we can see that option B fits perfectly as the intended result of option E.

Apt0810 · Answer

Recommends: Change the farm-subsidy system, because he gives the two drawbacks of subsidy:
1)Glut of fatty meats(cheaper quality)
2) Sugary foods
And both of these products will have negative impact on people's health
Intended: Improve the overall quality of people’s diets, by removing the wrong path where the subsidy has been put in, in which we are sponsoring cheap fatty meat and harmful sugary foods through the government subsidy

Posted from my mobile device

hassan233 · Answer

Health advocate: The government’s current farm-subsidy system primarily rewards large farms for planting monocultures of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. Most of the crops produced in this way go to feed livestock in factory farms, which results in a glut of fatty meats in the marketplace. A large proportion of such crops that are not used to feed livestock are used to make sugary processed foods. These subsidies promote unhealthy diets by making sugary foods and fatty meats artificially cheap. Obviously, it is important for the government to avoid these effects.

The bolded words are what you need. It is saying that the subsidies are bad (and should be changed) because they promote unhealthy diets (so getting rid of these subsidies should better people's diets).

The bolded words are what you need. It is saying that the subsidies are bad (and should be changed) because they promote unhealthy diets (so getting rid of these subsidies should better people's diets).

krndatta · Answer

hassan233 
Can you explain why "Improve the overall quality of livestock feed" cannot be the recommended action?

Thanks

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Take this question as GMAT CR question, read the statement carefully and keep CR logic in mind. According to the passage livestock feed and sugary processed food are produced from the plantation of monocultures of corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. Hence livestock feed is one of the two products produced. The government wants one of them to be reduced or eliminated. The pattern of the reasoning tells that the quality of livestock feed can be if any, a result of an action, not the action itself. "Improve the overall quality of livestock feed" is nowhere related to the recommended action.

krndatta · Answer

Sajjad1994 
Hi, 
So basically quality of livestock feed is not the concern of the author. 
He is interested in artificially cheap diets?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The government's main concern is "sugary processed food".

krndatta · Answer

Sajjad1994 
Alright. The government's concern is sugar processed foods. 
The concern of the author is the actions following the subsidies.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Health advocate is representative of the government he is saying what government wants. There is only one party involved here that is the government or health advocate whatever you name it.

krndatta · Answer

Sajjad1994 Alright. Thanks

Sneha2021 · Answer

GMATNinja   KarishmaB   Sajjad1994

A large proportion of such crops that are not used to feed livestock are used to make sugary processed foods. These subsidies promote unhealthy diets by making sugary foods and fatty meats artificially cheap. Obviously, it is important for the government to avoid these effects.

Prevent the manufacture of sugary processed food.- Why we cant select this option under "Recommends" 
The passage says that unhealthy diet is promoted by sugary food and to prevent that we need to prevent manfacture of this food. It will help to promote healthy diet.

Please help to reject this option

satish_sahoo · Answer

Hi  Sneha2021 ,

I'll try to help. Just in case this is still a doubt.

It is a great way to treat these text-heavy TPA questions like any RC passage. If you have seen  GMATNinja  's video and how Charles approaches any passage is to get the  main idea of it .

Here also you may do the same.

So, the health advocate's major concern was with the  govt subsidy which encouraged the farms to produce all these crops leading to fatty meats/ sugary processed items. Which then leads to unhealthy diet consumed by the consumers of the marketplace (basically we people).  And at the end health advocate suggests that the govt should avoid these effects i.e. Stop or change or modify the SUBSIDY, which doesn't lead to bad diet.

Coming to rejecting the option of -  Prevent the manufacture of sugary processed food.  
Advocate does say these are unhealthy diet but is it what he actually recommends? His whole idea was based on this particular subsidy harming the diets.

This is how i approached. Hope this made some sense.

MohdZaidKhan · Answer

Great Explanation Sir .I have a doubt regarding your selection of E for the first part . Your explanation's 3rd point saying that changing the farm subsidy program will solve the problems ..., But change can be negative also ... it may be changed in both the positive way and negative way ... which leads to ambiguity ... So I chose option A for first part and B for second part .. .Please help clear my doubt .Regards...

cheshire · Answer

You're right in general: the word  "change"  by itself can mean positive or negative.
 But in this passage, we know from the health advocate's reasoning what kind of change is intended.
Let’s look at this sentence from the passage:
 
What effects?
 
 Glut of fatty meats 
 Proliferation of sugary processed foods 
 Promotion of unhealthy diets 
 Artificially low prices for unhealthy foods  
So when the health advocate recommends a change, it’s clearly a corrective action aimed at reducing or eliminating those negative effects.

In other words: 
 The  intent  behind  "change the farm-subsidy system"  is  positive , because it’s the only way to  “avoid these effects”

Why Option A (Improve the overall quality of livestock feed) is incorrect for “Recommends”
 
 It is not an action the government is currently involved in, based on the passage. 
 The passage never suggests that the government is  directly managing feed quality.  Instead only that it incentivizes monoculture crop production through subsidies, which indirectly leads to poor feed and unhealthy outcomes. 
 Also, the health advocate’s criticism is structural, directed at the subsidy system itself — not specific fixes to its side effects.

Therefore, Option A:
 
 Might be a secondary effect of a broader policy shift, 
 But it’s  not  the primary recommendation supported by the text.

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Health advocate: The governments current farm-subsidy system primaril

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

Recommends	Intended result
		Improve the overall quality of livestock feed.
		Improve the overall quality of people's diets.
		Reduce the overall financial cost of people's diets.
		Prevent the manufacture of sugary processed food.
		Change the farm-subsidy system.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Health advocate: The governments current farm-subsidy system primaril

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