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

 It is currently 17 Jan 2019, 11:18

### 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 January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winning strategy for a high GRE score

January 17, 2019

January 17, 2019

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Learn the winning strategy for a high GRE score — what do people who reach a high score do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we've collected from over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

January 19, 2019

January 19, 2019

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.

# In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Posts: 62
Location: India
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 20:29
9
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:49) correct 38% (01:52) wrong based on 578 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT:

A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
B.In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.
C.Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
D.As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.
E.A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton.

I dont understand how the OA is correct and in relation to premise?
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2012
Posts: 6
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 20:54
1
It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim.
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 32
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 21:35
I did not understand the meaning of support payments.
Can anyone explain, pls?
_________________

If you think you are lost, you are.

Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 21:45
ravstime wrote:
I did not understand the meaning of support payments.
Can anyone explain, pls?

Hi ,

Direct payment is the term used in the Agriculture , which means government gives payments directly to the farmers to support their incomes and are paid directly to the farmers.
Hope dis helps

Try and fail but never fail to try.
Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 105
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 22:30
warrior123 wrote:
It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim.

How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase?

According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim.

What do experts say?
_________________

Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post

Manager
Joined: 05 May 2011
Posts: 65
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2012, 03:00
yashii9 wrote:
warrior123 wrote:
It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim.

How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase?

According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim.

What do experts say?

I reached D too through elimination.

Quote:
D - As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.

warrior123 wrote:
It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim.

I disagree with warrior123's explanation though since the question states that the farmers forego their acreage IF and only if they opt to receive the support payments.

Here's my explanation,
In order to strengthen the government's claims, enough farmers must opt in to receive direct payments in order to allow the cotton production to fall. This could only happen if opting in for such a plan is beneficial for the farmer since the government cannot force farmers into the plan.

Therefore, the government's subsidy should be enough to make it worth it for the farmer because a farmer could either keep producing cotton and opt out of receiving payments or he could opt in for the support payment and produce something else on 25% of the land. But since the government explicitly bars this from happening that extra 25% land is basically lying empty. Hence the subsidy is enough for the farmer so that he doesn't have to grow anything on the unused land which implies less effort for him but with the same payout, which he would obviously prefer and hence opt in for the plan.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, hope it makes sense.
Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 103
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2012, 10:08
1
1
How can A be eliminated??
A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4615
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 06:17
When there is inflation, the price increase is there in all items, just not limited to cotton alone. Since we are concerned with gratis payments for not growing cotton, Choice A has nothing to do with it. It is infact outside the bounds of the govt’s claim
_________________

you can know a lot about something but not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 278
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V47
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 08:22
2
A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation. weakens, if inflation has increased, then the price will evidently increase, the govt. action cannot be held responsible for price stabilization
B.In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.weakens. If the demand of the cotton increased, then price were back to level. There is no role of govt.
C.Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.If farmers refused to take acreage out, then Govt. program had nothing to do further
D.As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.Yes, this explains reduced supply, hence price were back at level
E.A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton.Weakens, Drought prevented over supply, hence prevented price plunge

Unfortunately, I am not so good in CR, even at the 600-700 level.

P.S. In weaken except questions the answer either strengthens or has no effect on the argument.
_________________

"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire

Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1323
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2012, 21:35
yashii9 wrote:

How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase?

According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim.

What do experts say?

Yes, I agree with you completely. In general, if a question asks "all of the following weaken the argument EXCEPT..." then you shouldn't be looking for an answer choice which *strengthens* the argument. Sure, if one answer strengthens the argument, it must be correct, but very often there will just be one answer choice which is completely irrelevant to the argument. I'd imagine most test takers (myself included) answer such questions by process of elimination, identifying four answers which certainly do weaken, leaving a fifth answer which must be correct.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Intern
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 26
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 02 Jul 2013, 06:00
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT:

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton

Originally posted by akijuneja on 02 Jul 2013, 05:55.
Last edited by Zarrolou on 02 Jul 2013, 06:00, edited 1 time in total.
Merging similar topics.
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jul 2013, 06:46
1
akijuneja wrote:
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT:

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton

hi,
conclusion here is :
because of DIRECT SUPPORT PAYMENT(DSP)===>PRICE INCREASED(PI)

My approach in all except question is to read and understand argument and then eliminate the wrong answers.

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.(inflation always increases the prices of all the products....hence its not DSP rather INFLATION which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>When demand of something increases PRICE also increases....hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.(NO FARMERS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF DSP ...HENCE THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER FACTORS FOR PI AND NOT DSP)===>WEAKENS
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.==>DOESNT AFFECTS (CORRECT)
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton(AGAIN DEMAND INCREASED IN NEIGHBOUR COUNTRY===>THEREFORE PI......hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS

hope it helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 109
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 01:28
shaileshmishra wrote:
akijuneja wrote:
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT:

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton

hi,
conclusion here is :
because of DIRECT SUPPORT PAYMENT(DSP)===>PRICE INCREASED(PI)

My approach in all except question is to read and understand argument and then eliminate the wrong answers.

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.(inflation always increases the prices of all the products....hence its not DSP rather INFLATION which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>When demand of something increases PRICE also increases....hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.(NO FARMERS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF DSP ...HENCE THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER FACTORS FOR PI AND NOT DSP)===>WEAKENS
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.==>DOESNT AFFECTS (CORRECT)
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton(AGAIN DEMAND INCREASED IN NEIGHBOUR COUNTRY===>THEREFORE PI......hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS

hope it helps

For (B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>
If the demand of a product rises, then the prices are reduced.. Its an inverse relation b/w demand and price... However, the OA is D ,but i don't know the exact reason to eliminate B
For (C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.(If this happens, that means there is scarcity of resources, that means limited products are there\ in the market and would lead to rise in price of that product i.e. cotton, it means the direct supply payement was not responsible for price rise)===>WEAKENS

I am still not able to understand why D is the answer...
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 01:53
jaituteja wrote:

I am still not able to understand why D is the answer...

hi,
If demand goes up, and supply stays the same, price goes up

If demand goes down, and supply stays the same, price goes down.

now in the case it is not given that suply is increasing or decreasing ....so we must assume supply is constant as in previous years.
now if you come to your B OPTION
(B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.===> As demand goes up ....price will automatically shoot up...
what you are thinking is ....iff price goes up===>then demand will go down==>in this case its inverse relationship....its not the other way round.
hope it makes sense.

now option C
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
FIRST of all taking out 25 acreage means===>let suppose you produce 100 cotton ==>this you always put in market for sale......now if government wants you to take out 25 of them from market ...then you will keep only 75 cotton in market.....but if you dont follow government order then it means you are putting all your 100 cotton in the market.....hence there is no scarcity if you dont follow government orders.
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton...hence there is no scarcity.....but as conclusion of argument is still the products price ROSE...then its for sure that this rise is not because of direct supply payment ..because nobody followed that...hence it weakens...

in all this question if 4 answer optins are weakening....then correct answer will either STRENGTHEN the argument or WILL NOT AFFECT(neutral) the argument.HERE OPTION D is neutral to the argument.

hope it helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 611
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 03:45
Quote:
For (B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>

If the demand of a product rises, then the prices are reduced.. Its an inverse relation b/w demand and price... However, the OA is D ,but i don't know the exact reason to eliminate B.I am still not able to understand why D is the answer...

If we could prove that most of the farmers didn't settle for the direct support payment and rather sold their yield to the large textile plant and that this was the reason for reversing the plummeting price of cotton,and not the direct support system,we can safely eliminate option B. Imagine that the current reduced rate of cotton was 100 \$ in some unit of weight at the beginning of 2001. Now, the large textile plant would want to buy a lot of cotton at the reduced price(take advantage ), and this would help clear a large volume of cotton already present. Gradually, there will be a point, where the actual volume left in the market would stabilize and would be good enough to be absorbed by the market,and ergo the price of cotton will stop falling further. In a distant case where the textile plant absorbs all the cotton, even then, the price of cotton would eventually rise, owing to the scarcity.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 109
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 05:34
shaileshmishra wrote:
jaituteja wrote:

I am still not able to understand why D is the answer...

hi,
If demand goes up, and supply stays the same, price goes up

If demand goes down, and supply stays the same, price goes down.

now in the case it is not given that suply is increasing or decreasing ....so we must assume supply is constant as in previous years.
now if you come to your B OPTION
(B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.===> As demand goes up ....price will automatically shoot up...
what you are thinking is ....iff price goes up===>then demand will go down==>in this case its inverse relationship....its not the other way round.
hope it makes sense.

now option C
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
FIRST of all taking out 25 acreage means===>let suppose you produce 100 cotton ==>this you always put in market for sale......now if government wants you to take out 25 of them from market ...then you will keep only 75 cotton in market.....but if you dont follow government order then it means you are putting all your 100 cotton in the market.....hence there is no scarcity if you dont follow government orders.
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton...hence there is no scarcity.....but as conclusion of argument is still the products price ROSE...then its for sure that this rise is not because of direct supply payment ..because nobody followed that...hence it weakens...

in all this question if 4 answer optins are weakening....then correct answer will either STRENGTHEN the argument or WILL NOT AFFECT(neutral) the argument.HERE OPTION D is neutral to the argument.

hope it helps

Thanks for the explanation for B.
But, are you sure that since no information about supply is mentioned, though we need to assume that supply is constant..????

For option C, i want to add few more points...
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton... we cannot judge whether there is any scarcity in the existing market or not... Maybe the cotton in the current market is already at a considerable level or it might be low or high.. Since we know nothing about it, we cannot make any judgment... I was wrong stating that there would be scarcity of resources/cotton in the prevailing market.

What i understood for option C is that "since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied..

Thanks for you explanantion on the concept of "acreage out of production", i read the CR so fast that sometimes i miss crucial points...

Can you explain option D..??? That would be great help..!!!!
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 06:43
1
jaituteja wrote:

Thanks for the explanation for B.
But, are you sure that since no information about supply is mentioned, though we need to assume that supply is constant..????

For option C, i want to add few more points...
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton... we cannot judge whether there is any scarcity in the existing market or not... Maybe the cotton in the current market is already at a considerable level or it might be low or high.. Since we know nothing about it, we cannot make any judgment... I was wrong stating that there would be scarcity of resources/cotton in the prevailing market.

What i understood for option C is that "since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied..

Thanks for you explanantion on the concept of "acreage out of production", i read the CR so fast that sometimes i miss crucial points...

Can you explain option D..??? That would be great help..!!!!

ACCORDING TO OPTION D:
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.

Let suppose if farmers take out 25 percent of their cotton(Which can be done if they do not not farm on the 25 percent of available land)===>then government will pay them X dollars
now according to option D if Farmer wants to get that X dollars farmers need to satisfy two condition
1)they have to take out 25 percent of the cotton (stated in the argument)==>which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land
2)they are prohibited to use that 25 percent of land for any other crop farming also.(stated in option D)
so this thing doesn't tells anything about price increase...hence as i said earlier it is neutral to the conclusion.

hope it helps
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 109
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 08:09
shaileshmishra wrote:
jaituteja wrote:

Thanks for the explanation for B.
But, are you sure that since no information about supply is mentioned, though we need to assume that supply is constant..????

For option C, i want to add few more points...
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton... we cannot judge whether there is any scarcity in the existing market or not... Maybe the cotton in the current market is already at a considerable level or it might be low or high.. Since we know nothing about it, we cannot make any judgment... I was wrong stating that there would be scarcity of resources/cotton in the prevailing market.

What i understood for option C is that "since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied..

Thanks for you explanantion on the concept of "acreage out of production", i read the CR so fast that sometimes i miss crucial points...

Can you explain option D..??? That would be great help..!!!!

ACCORDING TO OPTION D:
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.

Let suppose if farmers take out 25 percent of their cotton(Which can be done if they do not not farm on the 25 percent of available land)===>then government will pay them X dollars
now according to option D if Farmer wants to get that X dollars farmers need to satisfy two condition
1)they have to take out 25 percent of the cotton (stated in the argument)==>which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land
2)they are prohibited to use that 25 percent of land for any other crop farming also.(stated in option D)
so this thing doesn't tells anything about price increase...hence as i said earlier it is neutral to the conclusion.

hope it helps

Great explanation... Thanks...!!!

what exactly do you mean by this sentence ??
"which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land"

I could not understand it completely...

Rest i got why D is eleminated... Thanks a ton..!!!!
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 08:16
jaituteja wrote:
Great explanation... Thanks...!!!

what exactly do you mean by this sentence ??
"which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land"

I could not understand it completely...

Rest i got why D is eleminated... Thanks a ton..!!!!

you are welcome
the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production

i wanted to say regarding the highlited part===>if farmers have 100 acres land===>so they have to stop farming on 25 or more acre of land......to get direct support payments.
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 109
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 08:22
shaileshmishra wrote:
jaituteja wrote:
Great explanation... Thanks...!!!

what exactly do you mean by this sentence ??
"which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land"

I could not understand it completely...

Rest i got why D is eleminated... Thanks a ton..!!!!

you are welcome
the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production

i wanted to say regarding the highlited part===>if farmers have 100 acres land===>so they have to stop farming on 25 or more acre of land......to get direct support payments.

Ok... Got it.. Thanks..!!!!

Is the below reasoning correct to eliminate C..
"since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied."
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much &nbs [#permalink] 03 Jul 2013, 08:22

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by