Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on foo

Question

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.

mmphf · Answer

I chose B. Even though I don’t think B is a perfect answer, it is the best answer.

The only thing that Kim and Hampton agree on is the population is growing, and there will be a greater need for food. B says that research into finding a better and more efficient way to grow food would be beneficial, which both people would have to agree with, if they both think that we will need more food in the future.

I don’t see how it could be D. Hampton thinks that with advances in technology, we won’t need to erode the land, so he would not agree with this statement.

ohfred · Answer

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....

nilesh376 · Answer

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?

seekmba · Answer

'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....

:(

mmphf · Answer

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.

gurpreetsingh · Answer

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.

auradediligodo · Answer

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

deveshj21 · Answer

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.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

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.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

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.

nikitathegreat · Answer

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

KK14 · Answer

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?

GMATNinja · Answer

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.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on foo

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

Kim: The rapidly growing world population is increasing demands on foo

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