gmattyfatty wrote:
Paisi currently grows more non-soy legumes each year than it consumes, and exports of soybeans are in decline, due to competition from suppliers in other nations.
If these trends continue, Paisi's ability to export other legumes is likely to grow in the near future.
Bunuel bv8562 I don't see how, with the above 2 sentences, the answer is D and not E? It makes sense that if any of the Soybean plots have already been converted to growing other legumes, that the "
ability to export other legumes is likely to grow". How does the quantity of non-soybean legumes consumed in other countries each year impact
Paisi's ability to grow more non-soybean legumes? It only affects impacts their incentive
You misread the conclusion. The conclusion is "
If these trends continue, Paisi's ability to EXPORT other legumes is likely to grow in the near future."
We already know from the passage that Paisi currently grows more non-soy legumes each year than it consumes. Non-soy legumes are already in surplus. But for this surplus to be sold in other countries there has to be demand. In fact from the passage we also know that even when Paisi is able to export soybeans, exports of soybeans are still in decline, due to competition from suppliers in other nations. So, in order to evaluate the conclusion we need to evaluate what option D says.
Besides option E says "
Have any existing soybean plots in Paisi already been converted to growing other legumes?" But currently we don't care about this because non-soy legumes are already in surplus. First they need to make sure that there is demand for this surplus in other countries. If only they are able to sell this surplus and if there is still more demand for these non-soy legumes then only they will have to think of other solutions. Therefore, option E is not useful in evaluating the argument. That was my reasoning.