High levels of fertilizer and pesticides, needed when farmers try to

I have chosen A for this question:

The passage has 2 paragraphs. The first states the need to diversify crops to reduce water pollution and the second states the rules for government support. The two statements clash because in order to receive government support, the farmers must produce the same crop for several years, but by doing so, there is water pollution.

A. This statement is a combination of both paragraphs and is the correct answer.

B. We don't know that "the only solution..." is true. It could be that there are many different solutions, so this may or may not be true. Therefore, it is incorrect.

C. How can we be sure that farmers will still be making a profit? It could be that the government support is the only thing that allows farmers to profit and without it, they are losing money even if we include the reduction in chemical costs. Therefore, this statement cannot be proven from the passage and is incorrect.

D. This statement brings in outside information - this is incorrect.

E. Again, this statement cannot be proven from the passage. It may or may not be true, therefore this statement is incorrect.

How can the solution be A!!?

The first paragraph says that water pollution occurs when farmers try to produce 'high' yields of crop year after year.
In second paragraph, though the rules for governmental support says farmer must have produced the same crop for several years, they never say farmer must have produced them in high yields!
Putting the two together, the governmental support rules do not work against efforts to reduce water pollution. A farmer can produce same crop, year after year, in normal yields and can get the support benefit without increasing any pollution. Option 'A' doesnt seem correct.

Can someone provide their comments...

Thanks.

Interesting point! However, we also need to consider the second sentence in the context of the first. Let me rephrase the argument:

Experts urge farmers to diversify their crops and to rotate their plantings yearly because some farmers pollute the water when they plant the same crop every year. To receive governmental price-support benefits for a crop, farmers must have produced that same crop for the past several years.

See how I've combined two sentences into one here? Now it's clear why (A) is correct.

The trick I used, though, is that I didn't assume that all farmers try and produce high yield crops. And in fact, we don't need to assume that to arrive at conclusion (A). We just need to assume that some farmers try and produce high yield crops, which I would consider safe even if unstated. The "high yield" stipulation is, therefore, just a distraction.

(A) The rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution. - Correct, To receive governmental price-support benefits for a crop, farmers must have produced that same crop for the past several years, hence Crop Rotation wouldn't be possible.

(B) The only solution to the problem of water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides is to take farmland out of production. - Too Extreme

(C) Farmers can continue to make a profit by rotating diverse crops, thus reducing costs for chemicals, but not by planting the same crop each year. - Not mentioned in the Passage.

(D) New farming techniques will be developed to make it possible for farmers to reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides. - The Passage doesn't talk about New farming Techniques. - Irrelevant.

(E) Governmental price supports for farm products are set at levels that are not high enough to allow farmers to get out of debt. - Out Of Scope

Passage Analysis

High levels of fertilizer and pesticides,

High quantities or doses of fertilizer and pesticides

needed when farmers try to produce high yields

are required to be used by farmers when they are trying to produce large quantities

of the same crop year after year,

Of the same crop every year, that is, without leaving a gap of even a single year

pollute water supplies.

This use causes water supplies in that area to get polluted.

Experts therefore urge farmers to diversify their crops

Because of this pollution, experts earnestly request/exhort/encourage farmers not to cultivate the same crop but to cultivate different crops.

and to rotate their plantings yearly

These different crops again should not be planted every year, rather the farmers should keep rotating the plantings of different crops on a yearly basis.

To receive governmental price-support benefits for a crop,

In order to get the benefit of good prices or price support from the government for a particular crop,

farmers must have produced that same crop for the past several years.

it is mandatory for the farmer to have produced the same crop for past several years

Gist of the passage


In order to get high yields of the same crop year after year from their lands, farmers use high levels of fertilizer and pesticides.
(Here we can infer that low levels of fertilizer and pesticides will not give high yields of the same crop when grown every year)
(We can also infer that if the farmers did not want to get high yields of the same crop year after year from their lands, they would not need to use high levels of fertilizer and pesticides)

This leads to pollution of water supplies in that area
In order or curb pollution of water supplies, experts strongly recommend farmers to do the following
Not to cultivate the same crop year after year

Rather, to plant different crops
And to plant these diverse crops on a yearly rotational basis.

On the other hand if a farmer wants to get the benefit of good pricing for a particular crop of his from the government, then it is compulsory that
he should have produced the same crop for the past several years
(here we can infer that he should have produced the same crop year after year for past many years)

Question stem analysis

The statement above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?

If the information given in the passage is true, we need to identify the option which has the strongest support from the given passage.

Choice A

Understand the choice

As per this option the rule that the government has set up regarding prices of crops is in direct contrast to the efforts for reducing water pollution

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

As per the passage there is

A rule for the benefit of the farmers - In order to get the benefit of good prices or price support from the government for a particular crop, the farmer must have necessarily produced the same crop for past several years
A recommendation for the reduction of pollution of water supplies- farmers should not cultivate the same crop but diversify crops and the farmers should keep rotating the plantings of different crops on a yearly basis.
Now if we compare the two pieces of information we can clearly see that if the farmer wants to benefit from the rule then he has to go against the recommendation. And if he wants to uphold the recommendation then he has to forgo the rule. Which means that the rule works against the recommendation.

Hence, this option can be inferred from the passage.

Option A

Understand the choice

As per this option the rule that the government has set up regarding prices of crops is in direct contrast to the efforts for reducing water pollution

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

As per the passage there is

A rule for the benefit of the farmers - In order to get the benefit of good prices or price support from the government for a particular crop, the farmer must have necessarily produced the same crop for past several years
A recommendation for the reduction of pollution of water supplies- farmers should not cultivate the same crop but diversify crops and the farmers should keep rotating the plantings of different crops on a yearly basis.
Now if we compare the two pieces of information we can clearly see that if the farmer wants to benefit from the rule then he has to go against the recommendation. And if he wants to uphold the recommendation then he has to forgo the rule. Which means that the rule works against the recommendation.

Hence, this option can be inferred from the passage.



Choice C

Understand the choice

This option says that the farmers can continue to make profits

by rotating diverse crops which will reduce their costs for chemicals
but they cannot continue to make profits

by planting the same crop each year

Analyze in the context of the passage and the question stem

The passage contains the recommendation of the experts towards reducing water pollution. The idea is to reduce the usage of high levels of chemicals which the farmers were using to get high yields of the same crop. We can infer here that the aim of getting high yields of the same crop is with the aim of making profits. There are two reasons for this. (1) the government mandate for giving price support benefit is cultivate same crop for past several years. (2) High yields would mean distribution of costs and thus profits.

But there is no information given to conclude with 100% surety that even after following the experts’ recommendation, the farmers will continue to make profit by just saving costs for chemicals (they will not get the benefit of the price-support policy)

Similarly, we can infer that the farmers try to fulfil the governments mandate in order to benefit from price -support and thus make profits. It rather goes against this inference to say with 100% surety that they cannot make profits by continuing to plant the same crop.

Hence this is not the right answer choice.

why option c is out of scope?
How can we say that this is out of scope, as per my limited understanding I'm trying to link this reasoning with the profit-- as less fertilizer and pesticides will be used so the cost will be less and hence greater profit.

but...A also assumes that "several years" would mean..several past continuous years!..but is probably the best of the lot!

(I picked C..but then, there is nothing mentioned abt. revenues etc...as given in the OG explanation..)

High levels of fertilizer and pesticides, needed when farmers try to produce high yields of the same crop year after year, pollute water supplies. Experts therefore urge farmers to diversify their crops and to rotate their plantings yearly.

To receive governmental price-support benefits for a crop, farmers must have produced that same crop for the past several years.

The statement above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?

Rotate Crops -->Possibly Lower Fertz' levels
Same Crop--> $Govt-Benefits

x $Govt-Benefits --> x Same Crop [Contraposititve: If X happened Y must have happened. If Y must not have happened,then X did not happen]

Rotate Crop-->Lower Fertz levels-->x $Govt-Benefits

(A) The rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution.
-->Correct: Definitely.

(B) The only solution to the problem of water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides is to take farmland out of production.
-->Incorrect:The ONLY solution is to take farmland out of production? Too extreme.

(C) Farmers can continue to make a profit by rotating diverse crops, thus reducing costs for chemicals, but not by planting the same crop each year.
-->Incorrect: Can we say that the farmers CAN CONTINUE to make PROFIT from the reducing costs for the chemicals(i.e. fertilizers)? We do not know how much the farmers are earning currently from their produce and how much the chemicals cost. We can not conclude this.

(D) New farming techniques will be developed to make it possible for farmers to reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides.
--> Incorrect: We have no idea whether such a technique will be developed to help the farmers reduce fertilizer application.
(E) Governmental price supports for farm products are set at levels that are not high enough to allow farmers to get out of debt.
--> Incorrect: We are not able to conclude this from the given premise. This is not an inference but could be a strengthener for a conclusion: 'Farmers must rotate crops' or a weakener for a conclusion: 'Farmers must not rotate crops'.

The passage can be summarized as follows:

(i) Desire for high yield of same crop every year ---> lots of fertilizers and pesticides used ---> pollutes water levels
(ii) But to receive governmental price benefits for a crop ---> produce the same crop for several years

By comparing the premises (i) and (ii), we get to see that the conditions set forth by the government (price benefits provided to farmers) are at a standoff with the efforts to conserve water pollution (since the government must already be aware of the environmental consequence highlighted in (i) if it still sticks with the minimum requirement it sets to provide price benefits to farmers)

The statement above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?

(A) The rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution. - This is exactly what would support the conclusion. Based on the premises (i) and (ii), we will be able to arrive at (A) as our conclusion. Hence, (A) is the right answer choice.

(B) The only solution to the problem of water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides is to take farmland out of production. - (B) is quite an extreme solution to the water pollution problem. Besides, nothing in the passage even hints at taking an entire farmland out of production. Hence, eliminate (B).

(C) Farmers can continue to make a profit by rotating diverse crops, thus reducing costs for chemicals, but not by planting the same crop each year. - The passage only talks about diversifying crops as a solution to the water pollution problem. We do not have enough information to make any statement about the financial implications of 'diversifying' crops. We cannot arrive at (C) as a conclusion. Hence, eliminate (C).

(D) New farming techniques will be developed to make it possible for farmers to reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides. - We do not have any information regarding any new farming technique in the passage. We therefore cannot arrive at (D) as our conclusion. Hence, eliminate (D).

(E) Governmental price supports for farm products are set at levels that are not high enough to allow farmers to get out of debt. - The passage does not mention anything about farmers being under debt. Moreover, we do not have any proof (in the passage) to support the claim that (E) introduces (that the governmental support price is not high enough to allow farmers to go out of debt). Hence, eliminate (E).

If you find this explanation helpful, please do give it a kudos

Facts: High F & P pollute water. Experts suggest diversify crops and rotate plantings
It is also given that to receive the government price-support for a crop, farmers must produce same crop for the several years.

Main Idea of the above passage
So, if farmers follow experts advice, they will not get price-support.
and
if farmers don't follow experts advice, water supplies will be polluted.

The statement above, if true, best support which of the following conclusions?


(A) The rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution. This can be inferred from the passage.

(B) The only solution to the problem of water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides is to take farmland out of production. Based on the given information we can't say that taking farmland out of productionit is the only solution or not. So, can't infer.

(C) Farmers can continue to make a profit by rotating diverse crops, thus reducing costs for chemicals, but not by planting the same crop each year.
we can't say whether farmers can continue to make profit or loss based on the information in the passage. So, can't infer.

(D) New farming techniques will be developed to make it possible for farmers to reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides.
New farming technique was not discussed in the passage. We can't infer this as well. So, can't infer.

(E) Governmental price supports for farm products are set at levels that are not high enough to allow farmers to get out of debt.
We are not given any information about the level of the price support for the farm products. So, can't infer.

To receive governmental price-support benefits for a crop, farmers must have produced that same crop for the past several years.
High level of F&P - pollutes. Experts advice to rotate & diversify but their advise is not taken into consideration because for availing the benefit of the gov’s scheme farmer MUST have produced same crop.

The statement above, if true, best supports which of the following conclusions?

(A) The rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution.
Does the rule work against the efforts? Experts urge but there are no efforts made.

(B) The only solution to the problem of water pollution from fertilizers and pesticides is to take farmland out of production.
Out of scope and extreme - firstly only solution and out of production

(C) Farmers can continue to make a profit by rotating diverse crops, thus reducing costs for chemicals, but not by planting the same crop each year.
Out of scope - no mention about profit & cost

(D) New farming techniques will be developed to make it possible for farmers to reduce the application of fertilizers and pesticides.
Out of scope - no mention of development of new techniques

(E) Governmental price supports for farm products are set at levels that are not high enough to allow farmers to get out of debt.
Out of scope - no mention of debt

Hi team,

Just a Q - While the option A seems to be the correct option, I've got a Q here:

Can we 100% say that 'the rules for governmental support of farm prices work against efforts to reduce water pollution'?

Reason being that -
As per the Q statement, it was said that 'to receive governmental price-support benefits, farmers ....past several years.'

& 'High levels of fertilizer and pesticides, needed when farmers try to produce high yields of the same crop year after year''.

So my Q is that 'past several years' may not mean 'Year after year' right? It can be once in 2 years, year after year, or others. In this case, how can one be sure that A is absolutely on point?