GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 09 Dec 2019, 11:21

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 22 Jun 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Argentina
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Wharton
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V34
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2019, 13:48
1
1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (02:07) correct 24% (02:14) wrong based on 386 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

_________________
The HARDER you work, the LUCKIER you get.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Nov 2015
Posts: 34
Location: United States (CO)
WE: Information Technology (Consumer Products)
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2019, 18:52
4
patto wrote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

--Looking for something that convinces me that these saltwater plants are a better idea than Freshwater plants.

Quote:
(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
"Different". We don't know better or worse. Can't take chances.

Quote:
(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
Okay. Thanks for letting me know but how does this help me decide if these are better than freshwater plants? Not falling for it.

Quote:
(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
This seems to be weakening the conclusion. Not good. Moving on.

Quote:
(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
Again "different". No idea if the cost is less or higher than conventional crops. Wrong.

Quote:
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.
Bingo! Stimulus told me that pumping seawater is cheaper than freshwater. This options says water is one of the biggest expenses. This means if I use saltwater, I can feed my animals at a much cheaper cost. ANSWER!
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 22 May 2018
Posts: 49
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Apr 2019, 11:25
1
Quote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.


Conclusion: Agriculture in desert which is near sea level is cost-effective if we use seawater than freshwater.
Why? Because pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells
Therefore, We are looking for a strengthener with cost aspect to it.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

Quote:
(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.

We are not concerned about the nutritional value of halophytes.

Quote:
(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.

Not covering the cost aspect.

Quote:
(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.

This option is touching the cost aspect but research expenditures is out of scope. We are interested in the cost effectiveness of using sea water for agriculture.

Quote:
(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.

This option is saying that there is difference in cost when you irrigate halophytes with sea water and when you irrigate conventional crops with sea water. It does not tell us whether this difference is good(cost effective difference) or bad(expensive) difference. Also cost of irrigation of conventional crops with sea water is out of scope.

Quote:
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

There might be several costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop(halophyte/conventional) for animal forage. But Pumping water for irrigation is one of the largest costs and pumping sea water cuts down this major cost.
Hence, sea water is cost effective.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Status: As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Posts: 56
CAT Tests
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2019, 06:59
patto wrote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.



Do we have to consider info related to desert regions?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 57
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
CAT Tests
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2019, 14:34
This is a strenghtening question, so we need to try to find a gap in the argument so that one of the options can eliminate it.

Background: Researchers -> halophytes -> cost-effective
1ºCounterPremise: halophytes -> more water (not good)
1ºPremise -> halophytes -> seawater -> cheaper
2ºCounterPremise: seawater ->less yields (not good)


So we need to strenghten that halophytes are cost-effective. To do that we need an option that either eliminates the 2 counterpremises, which are not good or that finds more importante premises in favour of halophytes. One las thought before starting. Please realize that no measures are given. More water, less yields, cheaper, etc. So an option that helps us know by how much is all of this to finally conclude that indeed it is actually cost effective would be what we are looking for. Let's start

(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.

Different in nutrional value, but better or worse nutrional value? It doesn't secify so this cannot be the answer. Incorrect

(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.

Seawater has salt so it doesn't make sense. But if it didn't require it. This is a weakness because it requires something that wasn't mention in the argument, therefore, it is more costly and therefore it is less cost/efficient. Incorrect

(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.

research expenditure menas less cost-effective. This is a weakness. Incorrect

(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.

Again it says different, but we don't know if more or less so we can't evaluate it. Incorrect


(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

Aha! this is the answer. It says tha pumping costs are the most important ones in irrigation. And the argument mentioned that pumping costs for seawater are cheaper. Therefore, this shows that halophytes are cost-effective. Correct
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE: General Management (Retail)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2019, 09:23
How's E a strengthener ? It just says that it is one of the largest costs. But there maybe other costs which are higher for seawater agriculture. Please guide.
Senior SC Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 3729
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2019, 17:26
patto wrote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

azhrhasan wrote:
How's E a strengthener ? It just says that it is one of the largest costs. But there maybe other costs which are higher for seawater agriculture. Please guide.

azhrhasan , we are never told that any costs for seawater are higher than those for conventional freshwater agriculture.
Your argument is very sensible. It is realistic. But it is not supported by a single word in the prompt.

In CR and LR, stay only with the facts that are given to you.
I would avoid focusing on what you do not know and what is not mentioned in the prompt.

Try not to "import" facts that are not in the premises and conclusion.
Doing so plays right into the hands of LSAC.

Having practiced thousands of these questions and taken the LSAT with 50+ of these bad boys, I promise that this approach works: stay with the text you are given.

Sure, there may be other costs that are higher in seawater agriculture than in conventional agriculture.
We don't care about them, at all, because we know absolutely nothing about them.
We cannot be asked to evaluate something about which we know nothing.
Pretend these other theoretically high seawater agriculture costs don't exist.
They are not mentioned in the prompt and as such the conclusion does not depend on them.

We are here to find something that strengthens the (very specific) conclusion.

(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.

This fact supports the claim of cost-effectiveness in the conclusion.

At every stage of agriculture, pumping fresh water is proportionally one of the largest costs.
If I do this sea level desert seawater agriculture, using "much cheaper" pumped seawater, I save a lot of money at every stage of the process.
If we know (E), then we have strengthened the conclusion.
One of the proportionally largest costs just got a lot cheaper. Sounds cost-effective to me.

I hope that helps.
_________________
SC Butler has resumed! Get two SC questions to practice, whose links you can find by date, here.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has -- Margaret Mead
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 216
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Oct 2019, 13:10
patto wrote:
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—salt-tolerant plant species—for animal forage. Halophytes require more water than conventional crops, but can be irrigated with seawater, and pumping seawater into farms near sea level is much cheaper than pumping freshwater from deep wells. Thus, seawater agriculture near sea level should be cost-effective in desert regions although its yields are smaller than traditional, freshwater agriculture.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
(A) A given volume of halophytes is significantly different in nutritional value for animal forage from the same volume of conventional forage crops.
(B) Some halophytes not only tolerate seawater but require salt in order to thrive.
(C) Large research expenditures are needed to develop the strains of halophytes best suited for agricultural purposes.
(D) Costs other than the costs of irrigation are different for halophytes grown by means of seawater irrigation than for conventional crops.
(E) Pumping water for irrigation is proportionally one of the largest costs involved in growing, harvesting, and distributing any forage crop for animals.



Strengthen question

We are given two methods to grow forage for animals: one involves seawater and the other one involves normal water.

All that we know is that pumping seawater is more cost effective than pumping normal water. From this evidence the conclusion is drawn: seawater agriculture is more cost effective than normal agriculture even tough the yields are smaller.

The argument relies on the fundamental assumption that there are no other relevant costs involved in seawater agriculture that are not involved in normal agriculture.

While all the other statements do not impact the argument option E strengthen our assumption by stating that pumping water for irrigation is the largest cost involved.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—   [#permalink] 17 Oct 2019, 13:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne