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:
Quant Quizzes are back with a Bang and with lots of Prizes. The first Quiz will be on 8th Dec, 6PM PST (7:30AM IST). The Quiz will be Live for 12 hrs. Solution can be posted anytime between 6PM-6AM PST. Please click the link for all of the details.
Join IIMU Director to gain an understanding of DEM program, its curriculum & about the career prospects through a Q&A chat session. Dec 11th at 8 PM IST and 6:30 PST
Enter The Economist GMAT Tutor’s Brightest Minds competition – it’s completely free! All you have to do is take our online GMAT simulation test and put your mind to the test. Are you ready? This competition closes on December 13th.
Attend a Veritas Prep GMAT Class for Free. With free trial classes you can work with a 99th percentile expert free of charge. Learn valuable strategies and find your new favorite instructor; click for a list of upcoming dates and teachers.
Does GMAT RC seem like an uphill battle? e-GMAT is conducting a free webinar to help you learn reading strategies that can enable you to solve 700+ level RC questions with at least 90% accuracy in less than 10 days.
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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.
Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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!
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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.
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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?
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
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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.
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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.
gmatclubot
Re: Researchers have studied the cost-effectiveness of growing halophytes—
[#permalink]
17 Oct 2019, 13:10