Resident: Residents of this locale should not consider their

Question

Resident: Residents of this locale should not consider
their loss of farming as a way of life to be a
tragedy. When this area was a rural area it was
economically depressed, but it is now a growing
bastion of high-tech industry with high-wage
jobs, and supports over 20 times the number of
jobs it did then.

Which one of the following, if true, does the most to
justify the conclusion of the residentтАЩs argument?
(A) Farming is becoming increasingly efficient, with
the result that fewer farms are required to
produce the same amount of food.
(B) The development of high-tech industry is more
valuable to national security than is farming.
(C) Residents of this locale do not value a rural way
of life more than they value economic
prosperity.
(D) Many residents of this locale have annual
incomes that are twice what they were when
the locale was primarily agricultural.
(E) The loss of a family farm is often perceived as
tragic even when no financial hardship results.

ajaytumaney · Answer

I will go with D.
The rural area was economically depressed but not any more.

nakib77 · Answer

yup D it is.

gamjatang · Answer

Clearly (D)

scorpioguy · Answer

Answer is D - This is the only evidence that strengthens the conclusion that the residents need not consider loss of farming .....

automan · Answer

C for me. The argument is based in the assumption that what farmers consider more important money than any other thing. If this is not true, the argument can not be valid. My choice is  C .

OA plz

Antmavel · Answer

Agree with C too

you need to make the link between the fact that people should not consider their loss of farming as a way of life to be a tragedy AND the financial examples given by the resident.

they can only accept this argument if they don't feel that the loss of the rural way of life is more important or valuable than the financial interests.

rigger · Answer

a) weakens the argument
b) Out of scope
c) Out of scope
d) Money!
e) Out of scope

The best answer is D.

vc019 · Answer

D is the correct answer.
Reason: Economically depressed... and the income now is twice the agricultural income.

mohish · Answer

go C go...

christoph · Answer

C)...

what would justify the conclusion ? a piece of evidence that would show that the economic success of the area leads to the attitude of the residents that their life is not a tragedy due to the loss of farming. so we have to show that economic success means no tragedy. C) says that for the residents the economic values are at least as important as the rural way of life. fact is that the economy in xyz prospers. thats very important for the farmers and equally, if not more, important than the rural way of life.

D) should be out b/c its possible that the area prospers but the farmers still see their life as a tragedy b/c they dont care about the economy. they only care about their rural way of life...

GMATT73 · Answer

Focus on the resident`s conclusion:  Residents of this locale should not consider their loss of farming as a way of life to be a tragedy.  

What strengthens this argument?

D is a trap answer centered around a scope shift. Extra money does not necessarily justify the change as a betterment for  all  people!

My wager is on C. (perhaps many people were forced to adopt the new industry and change in a way of life)

vc019 · Answer

What is the OA plz.. and the OE too... 
Great going guyzz.

ronybtl · Answer

OA is C.

Bhai · Answer

This one was difficult for me but got C finally.

Resident: Residents of this locale should not consider their

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards