Last visit was: 17 Jul 2025, 14:23 It is currently 17 Jul 2025, 14:23
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
ohfred
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Last visit: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
72
 [20]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 37
Kudos: 72
 [20]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
17
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
mmphf
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Last visit: 28 Oct 2012
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States
Posts: 46
Kudos: 102
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
ohfred
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Last visit: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
72
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 37
Kudos: 72
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
nilesh376
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Last visit: 06 Jul 2010
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
46
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 36
Kudos: 46
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ohfred
Perhaps so... I thought the reason why he would agree is because of the statement towards the end"... without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture."

But maybe I did leap the logic a little. It did not mention about eroding wild-life....


Wats the question source??

Even I picked 'D', since hampton says without significantly decreasing land, means he slightly agree with Kims statement of forest and wild life depletion.

In 'B', Hamp says in first part, you are completly overlooking the possiblity of technology, means Kim dint agreed in his first statemnt, may be later 'Yes' but that will be over assumption, he might counter the argument.

Any better reason for 'B' to be right?
User avatar
seekmba
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Last visit: 25 Sep 2014
Posts: 626
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 626
Kudos: 3,558
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
'overlooking the promises of technology' does not mean Kim is not agreeing...it means Kim is neglecting the promises of technology.

I picked a totally different OA...which is sad...but i can relate to B....:(:(
User avatar
mmphf
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Last visit: 28 Oct 2012
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Location: United States
Posts: 46
Kudos: 102
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nilesh376
ohfred
Perhaps so... I thought the reason why he would agree is because of the statement towards the end"... without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture."

But maybe I did leap the logic a little. It did not mention about eroding wild-life....


Wats the question source??

Even I picked 'D', since hampton says without significantly decreasing land, means he slightly agree with Kims statement of forest and wild life depletion.

In 'B', Hamp says in first part, you are completly overlooking the possiblity of technology, means Kim dint agreed in his first statemnt, may be later 'Yes' but that will be over assumption, he might counter the argument.

Any better reason for 'B' to be right?

I can see what you are saying, but I still think B beats any of the other choices.

I didn't really read B as pro-technology, but looked at the first part of it as finding more efficient ways to farm. As both of them agree that something has to happen, I think Kim would agree that researching better ways to farm will be beneficial, even if she still thinks that won't be enough to avoind overuse of land, etc.

Just because Hampton mentions "without a significant decrease" doesn't mean he thinks that one day we will get into deforestation like Kim thinks. D is out for me.
User avatar
gurpreetsingh
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Last visit: 15 Jun 2019
Posts: 2,273
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 235
Status:<strong>Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.</strong>
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Products:
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 2,273
Kudos: 3,859
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ohfred
Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.
Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.
Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?
(A) Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture.
(B) Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less land would be beneficial.
(C) Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas for greater population density.
(D) In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests.
(E) The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our natural resources due to overpopulation.

My tots on the answer is :- Answer given is :-
Doubt answer given... suggestions/explainations pls? Thks so much !! =)

Kim states that to feed the increasing population we might have to increase agriculture for land by reducing forest area

Hampton states that technology will help us in increasing the productivity without increasing the land area.

Both of them ultimately do not want reduction in the forest area but they want to have surplus food for growing population. so they will clearly agree with B

D is supported only by KIM not by Hampton, so it is wrong.
User avatar
auradediligodo
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2021
Posts: 364
Own Kudos:
817
 [2]
Given Kudos: 67
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.

Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.

Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?


Inference question

Pre-thinking

From the argument we know that:
#1 Kim is against to exploit more lands for both urban and agricultural purposes
#2 Hampton thinks that technology will prevent the exploitation of natural resources for agricultural purposes

Both of them agree on the fact that exploitation of natural resources should be contained.
We should also note that Hampton does not give us his/her opinion about the exploitation of natural resources for urban purposes. Hence for what we know he might be against or supporting such explotation


POE

(A) Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture.
No-one thinks that increasing the land committed to agriculture is a good idea

(B) Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less land would be beneficial.
In line with pre-thinking

(C) Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas for greater population density.
we don't know hampton's stand on urban encroachment

(D) In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests.
Cannot infer from the argument

(E) The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our natural resources due to overpopulation.
the human diet is irrelevant

avatar
deveshj21
Joined: 06 Aug 2018
Last visit: 24 Apr 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 161
GMAT 1: 600 Q43 V30
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 81
Kudos: 15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
auradediligodo
Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on food producers in ways that threaten our natural resources. With more land needed for both food production and urban areas, less land will be available for forests and wildlife habitats.

Hampton: You are overlooking the promises of technology. I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture.

Kim’s and Hampton’s statements most strongly support the claim that both of them would agree with which one of the following?


Inference question

Pre-thinking

From the argument we know that:
#1 Kim is against to exploit more lands for both urban and agricultural purposes
#2 Hampton thinks that technology will prevent the exploitation of natural resources for agricultural purposes

Both of them agree on the fact that exploitation of natural resources should be contained.
We should also note that Hampton does not give us his/her opinion about the exploitation of natural resources for urban purposes. Hence for what we know he might be against or supporting such explotation


POE

(A) Efforts should be taken to slow the rate of human population growth and to increase the amount of land committed to agriculture.
No-one thinks that increasing the land committed to agriculture is a good idea

(B) Continued research into more-efficient agricultural practices and innovative biotechnology aimed at producing more food on less land would be beneficial.
In line with pre-thinking

(C) Agricultural and wilderness areas need to be protected from urban encroachment by preparing urban areas for greater population density.
we don't know hampton's stand on urban encroachment

(D) In the next half century, human population growth will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests.
Cannot infer from the argument

(E) The human diet needs to be modified in the next half century because of the depletion of our natural resources due to overpopulation.
the human diet is irrelevant

I don't see Kim making an argument. The only argument in the question is made by Hampton by disagreeing on what Kim says.
What are the clues that you have read, please elaborate, I'll be glad to learn.
User avatar
Mavisdu1017
Joined: 10 Aug 2021
Last visit: 04 Jan 2023
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 226
Posts: 361
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello expert,
I think both B and D are probably agreed by Kim and Hampton.
B is what Hampton said clearly, but whether or not Kim agreed, we don’t know. Just probably Kim agreed.
D is what Kim said clearly, and Hampton said “without significantly increasing”——>means will still increase but probably increased at a low speed. So Hampton probably agree “will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests”.
Need your help expert and much thanks.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,489
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,489
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mavisdu1017
Hello expert,
I think both B and D are probably agreed by Kim and Hampton.
B is what Hampton said clearly, but whether or not Kim agreed, we don’t know. Just probably Kim agreed.
D is what Kim said clearly, and Hampton said “without significantly increasing”——>means will still increase but probably increased at a low speed. So Hampton probably agree “will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests”.
Need your help expert and much thanks.
Hi Mavisdu1017.

Sometimes, we have to consider the likely thinking of the question writer when answering a CR question.

In this case, it's likely that the writer believed that (D) contradicts what Hampton said, "I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture," even though, as you said, "without significantly increasing" does imply that there will be some increase.
User avatar
nikitathegreat
Joined: 16 Dec 2021
Last visit: 05 Jul 2025
Posts: 197
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 98
Location: India
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Products:
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Posts: 197
Kudos: 20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
Mavisdu1017
Hello expert,
I think both B and D are probably agreed by Kim and Hampton.
B is what Hampton said clearly, but whether or not Kim agreed, we don’t know. Just probably Kim agreed.
D is what Kim said clearly, and Hampton said “without significantly increasing”——>means will still increase but probably increased at a low speed. So Hampton probably agree “will continue to erode wildlife habitats and diminish forests”.
Need your help expert and much thanks.
Hi Mavisdu1017.

Sometimes, we have to consider the likely thinking of the question writer when answering a CR question.

In this case, it's likely that the writer believed that (D) contradicts what Hampton said, "I am confident that improvements in agriculture will allow us to feed the world population of ten billion predicted for 2050 without significantly increasing the percentage of the world’s land now devoted to agriculture," even though, as you said, "without significantly increasing" does imply that there will be some increase.

I feel Hampton statement is in a more positive sense that the percentage of land devoted currently to agriculture will not diminish the land for forests and wildlife habitats because of technology and hence statement D can be incorrect. But how do we know whether Kim agreed to Hampton's promises of technology and whether the same would be beneficial?
Thanks
Nikita
User avatar
KK14
Joined: 27 Jun 2021
Last visit: 26 Jun 2025
Posts: 78
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 31
Posts: 78
Kudos: 36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am able to reject A, C, D and E. But for option B, Kim is not saying anything about continued research and more efficient agricultural practices. Can anyone please clarify?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 17 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,359
Own Kudos:
68,568
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,969
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,359
Kudos: 68,568
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
KK14
I am able to reject A, C, D and E. But for option B, Kim is not saying anything about continued research and more efficient agricultural practices. Can anyone please clarify?


 
­Kim is concerned because, as population grows, we'll need more land for food production and for urban areas -- and that means less land for forests and wildlife habitats.

So if you told Kim that you could come up with a way to producing more food on less land, that would help alleviate Kim's concerns. If that's the case, maybe we can increase food production WITHOUT increasing the amount of land used for food production.

Kim doesn't say anything about (B) directly, but given Kim's concerns, we can infer that Kim would agree that such research is beneficial.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,455
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,455
Kudos: 954
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7359 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts