The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

Conclusion:Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Reasoning: The correct answer weakens the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain. The incorrect answer supports or is neutral to the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain.

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. Wrong - if meat and grain is consumed more, then grain imports are likely. Thus, the conclusion is supported.

B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels. Wrong - Neutral. Even if consumption of meat is the same, the statement neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.

C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. Wrong - Out of scope. The conclusion depends upon whether or not Baurisia is importing grain.

D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. Correct - If it is more economical to import meat than grain, then Baurisia is more likely to import meat than to import grain. Thus, the conclusion is weakened.

E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. Wrong - Neutral. Even if the country's population has remained relatively stable, the country is not more or less likely to import grain.

IMO D

I think I can understand that the reason behind the answer being D is based on this part of stimulus: "and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat." But this statement seems to give only the comparative measure of meat and grain, not necessarily imply that several pounds of grain can be substituted by meat. Can someone please explain?

Aha I see now. So grain was a distraction. However, in that case the problem becomes too simple to be a question.

I though of the chain "if import grain -> feed animals-> kill them->make meat-> meat to Baurisians" that you presented, but I know that animals eat grass not grain. Therefore I dismissed that reasoning. But in the end the whole grain story is artificially thrust upon the basic argument about meat self sufficiency. Thanks for clarification, appreciate it.

You are welcome: )

I would say that grain or grass is less relevant here.

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat.---------This line denotes a fact or premise. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, an it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. ---/** This denotes the basis of the argument/** Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely,-----/**This denotes the fact/** Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.- This is the conclusion of the argument.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weaken the argument?

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

The concept says that you can't deny the premise/fact/evidence, but you can deny the reasoning. the reasoning here is more grain will be required to produce meat. One more fact in the argument is increases in domestic grain production is unlikely.

Let's say that in place of option D, it would have been that a viral crop disease has crippled the main country where the Baurisia is likely to import the grain from.
.
Which one would be correct then?

Any expert. help me to get deep into this.

I'm little bit confused about option C.to weaken the argument we need to find two alternate way.One way is to import meat or another way is to produce more grain.Now both C and D are talking about importing meat but C is a little bit masked and D is direct.So why C is not the right choice??

The argument indicates that the requirement of meat in Baurisia is going to increase (premise 1), and therefore the requirement of grain is also going to increase (conclusion), because one pound of meat production requires several pounds of grain (premise 2). However the argument assumes that the only source of meat in Baurisia is grains; the argument overlooks the possibility that meat can be supplied by some other means, such as, by importing. Therefore a comparison between grain import and meat import would be a good choice for answering this question. Option D makes this comparison and thereby attacks the link between the premise 2 and conclusion.

Option C does not make it clear whether the price of meat would be low enough in those likely exporting countries so as to make meat import more economical than grain import. No Information is given about grains in this option. Moreover an additional assumption is required that higher consumption results in higher price. Option D is a more direct way and leaves no uncretainty about the advantage of meat import over grain import. Therefore option D is better than option C.

Cause : Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat

Effect : Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain

B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the cause always produces the effect, any scenario where the cause occurs and the effect does not weaken the conclusion.

Answer : (D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

* QUICKLY IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.
> TASK: WEAKEN!

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
- Opposite. If people increase their consumption of grain, this STRENGTHENS the conclusion!

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
- Out of scope. Who cares how the consumption of meat is spread across the people of Baurisia?

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
- Out of scope. Who cares about countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat?

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
- Correct. This weakens the idea that Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain. Why would it import grain when demand for meat is going up and it is more economical for them to just import meat?

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.
- Out of scope. Who cares about the population growth? This doesn't address the import of grain.

Kudos please if you find this helpful

Lots of grain is needed to make meat.
Per capita consumption of meat is increasing (we don't know whether everyone is eating a bit more or some people are eating a whole lot more)
Per capita income will continue to rise (so consumption of meat will continue to rise)
Grain production will not increase.

Conclusion: the country will start importing grain.

Weaken it. The country could directly import meat rather than grain. Option (D) works.

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

Makes it more likely that grain will be imported.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

Doesn't matter who is consuming meat. Prosperity is increasing so demand for meat will keep increasing. Everyone will eat more than before because of increased income. How the per capita consumption of meat compares across incomes doesn't matter. Say everyone eats meat once in a day. When they start earning more money, they might start consuming it twice because they feel richer. Everyone may have been able to "afford" two meat meals prior to increase also. The important factor is the increased income for average individual, not comparative incomes of people.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

Irrelevant. Nothing says that Baurisia will not be able to import meat. These countries may have sufficient for their own increased consumption and to export.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

Correct.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

We know demand for meat will rise. Stable population is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

with B - if meat consumption is the same across income groups then why would meat consumption increase as people get richer???

I can see how D is the stronger answer but B weakens the argument too no?

The question clearly says that when people in Baurisia get richer, they start eating more meat per person. So, who cares if everyone across all income levels is eating the same amount of meat? The fact is that overall meat consumption is going up. So, option B doesn't really weaken the argument.

"Understanding the argument - It's an excellent argument to understand the basics. If we don't understand the basics, we'll choose any option but D because all at once, it looks not okay, and we have to choose something; we'll choose something knowingly at the back of our mind that may be wrong. So good to understand the basics.
Conclusion - Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain. Why? Because per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely. So we see that there is a cause-effect.
Cause - Increase in per capita consumption
Effect - Baurisia to become an importer of grains.

What have we been asked to do? To weaken the argument? So, we need to weaken the conclusion. What will the conclusion conclusion look like? Baurisia to not become an importer of grains.

So what we have is the
The cause is still here - An increase in per capita consumption, but the effect is not there. What we have been asked to do gives us a clue. Let me refresh our memories. How do we weaken X to cause Y? "X is there, Y is not there," or "X is not there, Y is there," or "Alternate cause," or "Y caused X." So the question stem has made our life easier. It's limiting it to X is there, Y is not there. One way to do that is to give a counterexample, but that's an issue; we don't have a counterexample to show that X is happening while Y is not happening. There is a twist in that. Let's unpack X. What is X? Increase in per capita consumption. Okay, so how do we manage the increase in per capita consumption? By using grains to produce meat. What have we assumed here? We assumed that there was no other way. What do we call this category of questions? These are called "Flaw." So, there is a flaw in the reasoning? What reasoning? That to meet the increased per capita consumption, we need to use more and more grain. What is the flaw in this again? We assume that there is no other way. It is a classic narrow vision trap in flawed arguments. The option D attacks this assumption. So, what makes this question an excellent question? Because it's not just cause and effect. That is comparatively easy. It's identifying the flaw in our reasoning and identifying the flaw. If we know what the flaw is, then option D is music. But if we don't realize that, we'll keep reading A to E, and all will look unsuitable. I apologize for the long text above; I hope it helps you understand the complexity.


(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. - Strengthens the conclusion.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels. - Strengthens the conclusion.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. - Out of scope.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. - Attacks the assumptions of our flawed reasoning and bang. We have our answer.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. - It's not about the population; it's about their meat consumption. Distortion."