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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Grab 20% off any Target Test Prep GMAT Focus plan during our Flash Sale. Just enter the coupon code FLASH20 at checkout to save up to $320. The offer ends on Tuesday, April 30.
n this GMAT experience talk show, we talk to Tavishi, a young MBA aspirant from India who recently scored 725 in her latest GMAT Focus exam. It’s a 99.9 percentile score on new GMAT Focus edition and she achieved this feat in her first GMAT attempt.
What do András from Hungary, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Saahil from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
In this webinar, Rajat Sadana, GMAT Club’s #1 rated expert will help you create a personalized study plan so that each one of you can visualize your journey to a top GMAT Focus Score.
Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
29 Jun 2005, 19:24
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
HideShow
timer Statistics
Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture. Thus, if we choose to sustain economic growth, which requires increasing agricultural production, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the agricultural economist's reasoning?
A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiveristy
B) Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiveristy
C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase
D) Preserving biodiveristy is no more important than increasing agricultural production
E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.
Are we looking to "strengthening" the author's conclusion? Or are we being asked to provide a premise that would better help us reach the conclusion? Is there a difference? I get confused when i see this type of question. Any help is greatly appreciated.
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.
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.
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
30 Jun 2005, 08:39
I struggled with this one. My answer is B
I narrowed the choices to B and D. B seems to be the most plausible explanation. We are trying to further economic growth, but that it should not come at the expense of biodiversity. D is narrow in the sense, that it doesn't talk about economic growth. I may be wrong on this one.
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
30 Jun 2005, 08:50
I agree it has to be B.
A is out because the passage says nothing about increasing biodiversity
C makes it sound that the primary objective of the Agric. economist is to increase agric produciton by all means
D is out becuase no where in the stem was the preservation of biodiversity mentioned
E doesn't hold becuase it implies if x then y, if y then x which is not logical.
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
05 Jul 2005, 06:05
AJB77 wrote:
This to me is a hidden assumption question.
A = Agriculture production increase B = Biodiversity reduction C = Use of conventional agriculture
Argument: He is saying (A can happen without B happening) ONLY IF C does not happen.
Conclusion: Therefore if we need D, which requires A, we need C not to happen.
For the conclusion to be valid, B must not happen when A happens.
Therefore answer is B
AJB77, You seem to really understand these types of question very well and you have a very efficient methodology that I'd like to understand further.
Questions:
#1) From the argument we just know that A can happen without B happening. Our conclusion says that if we need D to happen the following conditions must be met:
- A needs to happen
- C needs to not happen
With this information at hand, how can we leap to the conclusion that A and B are mutually exclusive in order for the conclusion to happen?
Also would you mind trying your logic with the following question:
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
05 Jul 2005, 07:05
gmataquaguy,
The argument states that (A and ~B) => C and then says by the above logic and the fact that D => A (D = Economic growth) the conclusion is the D => C
Therefore we can see that this argument would be most strengthened if it changes into ( D and ~B) => C
---
I'm not saying that A and B are mutually exclusive. They may or may not be true. What we DO know is that A alone or ~B alone do not necessarily imply that C is true. But the one statement we are given is:
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
05 Jul 2005, 10:37
Ah i see!!! Good Stuff.
We are also making a small implicit assumption that abandon conventional agriculture (from premise) = radically modify agricultural techniques (from conclusion).
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural
[#permalink]
05 Jul 2005, 18:00
gmataquaguy wrote:
We are also making a small implicit assumption that abandon conventional agriculture (from premise) = radically modify agricultural techniques (from conclusion).
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural [#permalink]