Last visit was: 20 May 2024, 05:46 It is currently 20 May 2024, 05:46
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
Unanswered
Active Topics
New posts
New comers' posts
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that

User avatar
vaivish1723
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 216
Own Kudos [?]: 2540 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   03 Jun 2009, 02:38
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
43. In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that require irrigation has always been higher than the average productivity of farm lands that do not require irrigation. The two Smodges dam is projected to increase the percentage of irrigated land in Melanexa dramatically. Therefore, the average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. In Melanexa, the percentage of lands that are becoming amenable for irrigation is higher now than it was several years ago.
B. The higher average productivity for lands with irrigation is not due largely to a scarcity in Melanexa of such lands which attract large investments.
C. Farm lands with more than one source of irrigation grow more, on average, than the lands with only one irrigation source.
D. There is no other way that the Melanexa's farmland productivity can be raised other than by the Smodges dam.
E. In Melanexa, the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase over the next decade.


OA is [spoiler]b[/spoiler]. Pl explain.



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.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
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.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
bigoyal
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 578
Own Kudos [?]: 2331 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: New Delhi
Concentration: IT Consultancy
 Q50  V38
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   03 Jun 2009, 05:10
Hi vaivish,

I think this is quite a tough one. I don't have much reasons to support the so-called "correct choice" B, but I would try to strike-off C, D, E and probably A as well.

Here are my reasons for striking-off these options:

C. Out of scope - Nowhere in the paragraph it is mentioned that farmlands with more than one source of irrigation grow more. I assumes 2 dams are same (or atleast similar) source.

D. "There is no other" is too extreme. We never know, there can be other ways as well.

E. Note, in the the last line of the paragraph "average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase". ALL can cover both types of farmlands. So we cannot assume that "the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase"

A. This option is talking about "present" increase in number of irrigated farmlands, whereas paragraph is talking about "future" possibility.

anyone on correct choice ?
User avatar
Neochronic
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 131
Own Kudos [?]: 65 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   03 Jun 2009, 10:15
1
Kudos
B is the right assumption..

becoz it assumes that the higher productivity is due to the scarcity of lands which attracts investments..

when we negate this assumption, we can say that higher productivity is due scarcity of lands which attract to large investments i.e even if irrigation comes into picture, they will not attract investment and hence no increase in productivity.

Let me know if want me to explain more.
User avatar
neeshpal
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 1491 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: nj
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   03 Jun 2009, 15:00
yeh B should be it.

If higher productivity is due to something other than irrigation then why would irrigation increases the overall higher productivity.
User avatar
chicagocubsrule
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 163
Own Kudos [?]: 467 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   03 Jun 2009, 21:29
vaivish1723 wrote:
43. In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that require irrigation has always been higher than the average productivity of farm lands that do not require irrigation. The two Smodges dam is projected to increase the percentage of irrigated land in Melanexa dramatically. Therefore, the average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. In Melanexa, the percentage of lands that are becoming amenable for irrigation is higher now than it was several years ago.
B. The higher average productivity for lands with irrigation is not due largely to a scarcity in Melanexa of such lands which attract large investments.
C. Farm lands with more than one source of irrigation grow more, on average, than the lands with only one irrigation source.
D. There is no other way that the Melanexa's farmland productivity can be raised other than by the Smodges dam.
E. In Melanexa, the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase over the next decade.


OA is [spoiler]b[/spoiler]. Pl explain.


B it is. The conclusion assumes that the lands will be more productive because of an increase in irrigation. If however, the shortages are a result of scarce land you can have all the water in the world and it'll make no difference in crop productivity. Answer choice A is incorrect because cannot infer the land productivity in the future to "a few years ago".
Hope this clarifies things for you.
User avatar
bkumars8
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   07 Jun 2009, 11:24
I'd go with B as well as the denial of option B breaks the argument.
User avatar
aknine
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2009
Posts: 73
Own Kudos [?]: 96 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink] In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that   07 Jun 2009, 12:23
Ok, but why don't we consider the option 'A'. I feel that it is correct because :
The statements say that the avg. productivity of irrigable farmlands have always been higher than those which do not require irrigation. The 2 Smodges dams would increase the percentage of irrigable land, therefore, the productivity of all the farmlands is likely to increase.

Now, if the farmlands that do not require irrigation increase, the presence of the 2 dams would not affect their productivity, so, the thing that we are assuming here is that, since the presence of the dams would increase the productivity of the irrigable land, therefore, the percentage of land that requires irrigation would be higher than what it was previously.

I do not support 'B' because it is not helping us derive the conclusion that the productivity is going to increase, which is what we need to eventually conclude. It only states that the high productivity of irrigable land is not due to scarcity of such irrigable land which require large investments (dams).
So, I agree with 'A'.

well.. does that help..???



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.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
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!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that [#permalink]
07 Jun 2009, 12:23
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts