Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
03 Jun 2009, 02:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 1
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
43. In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that require irrigation has always been higher than the average productivity of farm lands that do not require irrigation. The two Smodges dam is projected to increase the percentage of irrigated land in Melanexa dramatically. Therefore, the average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. In Melanexa, the percentage of lands that are becoming amenable for irrigation is higher now than it was several years ago.
B. The higher average productivity for lands with irrigation is not due largely to a scarcity in Melanexa of such lands which attract large investments.
C. Farm lands with more than one source of irrigation grow more, on average, than the lands with only one irrigation source.
D. There is no other way that the Melanexa's farmland productivity can be raised other than by the Smodges dam.
E. In Melanexa, the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase over the next decade.
OA is [spoiler]b[/spoiler]. Pl explain.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. In Melanexa, the percentage of lands that are becoming amenable for irrigation is higher now than it was several years ago.
B. The higher average productivity for lands with irrigation is not due largely to a scarcity in Melanexa of such lands which attract large investments.
C. Farm lands with more than one source of irrigation grow more, on average, than the lands with only one irrigation source.
D. There is no other way that the Melanexa's farmland productivity can be raised other than by the Smodges dam.
E. In Melanexa, the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase over the next decade.
OA is [spoiler]b[/spoiler]. Pl explain.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
03 Jun 2009, 05:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi vaivish,
I think this is quite a tough one. I don't have much reasons to support the so-called "correct choice" B, but I would try to strike-off C, D, E and probably A as well.
Here are my reasons for striking-off these options:
C. Out of scope - Nowhere in the paragraph it is mentioned that farmlands with more than one source of irrigation grow more. I assumes 2 dams are same (or atleast similar) source.
D. "There is no other" is too extreme. We never know, there can be other ways as well.
E. Note, in the the last line of the paragraph "average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase". ALL can cover both types of farmlands. So we cannot assume that "the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase"
A. This option is talking about "present" increase in number of irrigated farmlands, whereas paragraph is talking about "future" possibility.
anyone on correct choice ?
I think this is quite a tough one. I don't have much reasons to support the so-called "correct choice" B, but I would try to strike-off C, D, E and probably A as well.
Here are my reasons for striking-off these options:
C. Out of scope - Nowhere in the paragraph it is mentioned that farmlands with more than one source of irrigation grow more. I assumes 2 dams are same (or atleast similar) source.
D. "There is no other" is too extreme. We never know, there can be other ways as well.
E. Note, in the the last line of the paragraph "average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase". ALL can cover both types of farmlands. So we cannot assume that "the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase"
A. This option is talking about "present" increase in number of irrigated farmlands, whereas paragraph is talking about "future" possibility.
anyone on correct choice ?
03 Jun 2009, 10:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
B is the right assumption..
becoz it assumes that the higher productivity is due to the scarcity of lands which attracts investments..
when we negate this assumption, we can say that higher productivity is due scarcity of lands which attract to large investments i.e even if irrigation comes into picture, they will not attract investment and hence no increase in productivity.
Let me know if want me to explain more.
becoz it assumes that the higher productivity is due to the scarcity of lands which attracts investments..
when we negate this assumption, we can say that higher productivity is due scarcity of lands which attract to large investments i.e even if irrigation comes into picture, they will not attract investment and hence no increase in productivity.
Let me know if want me to explain more.
