In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just

Question

In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia’s total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Teruvia’s population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Clearly, therefore, Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.

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

(A) No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia.

(B) Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the cultivation of rice.

(C) None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.

(D) There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not increase.

(E) There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia.

ID 00886

ChrisLele · Accepted Answer

The prompt says that the amount of rice is enough to sustain the current populations demand. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the population, per capita, eats 100 grains of rice per year. If the number of total rice grains produced is fixed, then the only way that the country will not meet its rice demand is if the per capita consumption remains the same.

If per capita consumption falls to 50, and the population only increase by 20% then clearly Teruvia will not have to import rice. Only answer choice (A) address this issue. If we negate (A), we get:

A pronounced...decrease per capita......which, as I pointed out, shows that the conclusion - Teruvia will have to import - is invalid.

Hope that helps

.

whiplash2411 · Answer

We are told that presently the rice production is just enough to satisfy the need. We are told that rice production trends will not change, but population will increase.

We are hence assuming that the amount of rice demanded by the people will remain the same, and hence increase with increase in population.

Options C, D and E are irrelevant. So let's just look at A and B.

A says that there is no downward trend in demand for rice, which means that demand for rice is constant, which is consistent with our observation. Let's negate this. There is a decreasing per capita demand for rice. This weakens our argument. Hence A is correct.

But to look at B: This is talking about the acreage suited for the production of rice. This situation already exists with the present trends. We are told that there won't be a change in rice production trends or increase in acreage. Hence this becomes immaterial to answer the question of whether rice demand stays the same in order to require imports.

plaguerabbit · Answer

A

Author is arguing that as the population increases, and no increased production of rice is planned, Teruvia will have to import rice. He is assuming that the demand for rice wont go down, pretty much.

TGC · Answer

Hi e-gmat,

Just wanted to know whether my reasoning is correct on this one.

Premise:

Currently, Domestic supply=Domestic Demand.

Supply of rice won't increase appreciably to meet increased demand in case the demand increases.

Population will be increasing.

Conclusion:

City will have to  IMPORT  rice.

Pre thinking assumption:

Population increase doesn't necessarily means that the DEMAND of RICE will increase and hence this is the GAP.

(a). A. No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia.
 In other words, DEMAND is unlikely to decrease by any chance and hence city has to import the rice.

sayan640 · Answer

Between A and C ...

If A is negated , it becomes "A pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia. "
Then the conclusion can not follow.
Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice" --> can not follow. Since the demand is decreasing , Teruvia wont have to import rice.

If option C is negated it becomes "Some of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding. "
Which means Some of the strains are high yielding some are not.

If a significant no of strains are not high yielding then the conclusion can follow i.e Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.

Conclusion follows after negation. So option C is not correct.

VeritasKarishma 
 GMATNinja 
 nightblade354

Is my explanation correct ?
Please check once...

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument gives you clearly: "nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably"

(C) None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding.

It doesn't matter whether the current strains are exceptionally high-yielding or not. Whatever rice is produced is just enough for the population. Also, the rice per acre is not going to increase appreciably. So the kind of strains of rice being grown does not impact the conclusion at all.

zoezhuyan · Answer

dear experts, what's the problem in E, although I totally understand A is the correct answer, I have no idea what's the problem in E

Harsh2111s · Answer

Even though if there are other options than rice, it will not have any effect of conclusion.

Here we are talking about importing rice only.

mSKR · Answer

OFFICIAL Answer Explanation 
Reasoning What must be true in order for the given premises to justify the conclusion that Teruvia will have to begin importing rice? The argument implies that domestic rice production will not increase and that there are no rice exports, imports, surpluses, or stockpiles. It also implies that since Teruvia’s population will increase, its total demand for rice will increase. But this assumes that Teruvians will not start eating less rice per person.

A Correct. This expresses the final assumption discussed above, that Teruvians will not start eating much less rice per person.
B This may suggest that finding better acreage could increase rice yields, but the argument assumes that rice yields per acre will not increase appreciably.
C This may suggest that new strains of rice could increase rice yields, but the argument assumes that rice production will not increase.
D The argument assumes only that Teruvia’s total demand for rice will increase, not that the demand in every region will increase.
E The argument does not need to assume that rice is the only crop for which domestic production and demand are balanced. It is compatible with saying, for instance, that what holds for rice also holds for other crops.

ujain · Answer

Fact 1 : the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand.
 Fact 2 . Teruvia’s total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future nor will rice yields per
acre increase appreciably
 Fact 3 : Teruvia’s population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come

Conclusion:  Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Now since the production of rice is not going to increase and the population will continue to rise, it only
makes sense that Teruvia will soon run out of rice UNLESS as the population increases the people begin
to consume less rice.
 A. CORRECT. Negate this 
“There is a pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice in Teruvia”
this would automatically destroy our conclusion and is therefore the assumption on which the argument
depends.
B. Irrelevant. Since this is already the case, the amount of rice produced wont decrease and hence wont
affect out conclusion.
C. Irrelevant. We know that the yield will remain constant.
D. We are concerned with the general population growth and not region wise growth.
E. Irrelevant.

mSKR · Answer

I think A is better choice than others but still A can be argued. Because as in argument it is mentioned that population will increase. Even if per capita consumption is decrease, still there could be chances that Country need to import rice.

How about others?

How about others?

omsgapsa · Answer

Just one question here: Though demand per capita is a function of population, option A does not address by how much the population increases. So when negating option A, we need to rely on the information from the passage to understand by how much the population is increasing. Passage says "significantly"; 20% does not seem enough to justify that. Can someone talk me out of this?

Paras96 · Answer

(A) No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia.

The argument is based on the premise that Teruvia's population is increasing significantly, and the country's rice production will not be sufficient to meet this growing demand. To reach this conclusion, the argument assumes that there is no pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice in Teruvia. If there was such a trend (meaning that each person in Teruvia was consuming less rice on average over time), it could offset the need to import more rice, even with a growing population.

abhinaya15989 · Answer

significant is a subjective term and hence, cannot be exactly defined. The reasoning for the question is as follows:-

Demand for rice = per capita consumption * population

Slight decrease in per capita consumption maybe compensated by significant increase in population in future to keep the demand for rice increasing. However, if there is pronounced decrease in per capita consumption of rice, the significant increase in population may not be enough to keep the demand for rice increasing. This might lead to decrease in demand for rice in future. If that happens, then our conclusion (that we need to import rice in future) fails. Therefore, you see that the Option A assumes that there is no pronounced decrease in per capita consumption of rice in future (it allows for slight decrease in per capita consumption).

btsaami · Answer

Conclusion: Teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.
Premise: the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand. Teruvia’s total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably.
Assumption: Demand for rice will not fall in the future.
Why correct?A) No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in Teruvia. --> In line with assumption. If per capita demand falls then there might be no need to import rice.
Why wrong?(B) Not all of the acreage in Teruvia currently planted with rice is well suited to the cultivation of rice.--> Even if the land were well suited, the rising demand of the population might have led to importing rice.

(C) None of the strains of rice grown in Teruvia are exceptionally high-yielding. --> This gives another reason to import and not due to increasing demands and population.

(D) There are no populated regions in Teruvia in which the population will not increase. --> Irrelevant as the overall population increase and their demand will determine the possibility of import.

(E) There are no major crops other than rice for which domestic production and domestic demand are currently in balance in Teruvia. --> Out of scope as rice import is independent of the balance of other crops unless stated in the agrument.

In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just

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

In Teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just

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