sahilmshah92 wrote:
Rice farmers in California are heavily dependent on government support, not only for the federal import tariffs on rice that allow them to sell rice domestically at prices up to 10 times higher than the price of rice on the world market, but also for the tens of millions of gallons of water that they must use each year to grow their monsoon crop in a desert climate. Under a 60-year-old agreement, the state guarantees California’s rice growers half of their water at a price less than one-fifth of that paid by municipalities for their water. Under these favorable conditions, the California rice industry is thriving, and its lobby in Sacramento insists vehemently that the state continue to honor its water agreement. The profligate water use that this agreement allows is intolerable given California’s growth rate and drought cycle. The state of California should cease to subsidize the waste of such a precious mineral natural resource by an unnecessary, artificially competitive industry.
Which one of the following, if true, best supports the position taken by the author in the passage above?
A) Higher prices for rice on the world market make the import quotas maintained by the United States government less necessary.
B) Easing import quotas on foreign rice would not necessarily increase the proportion of foreign rice purchased domestically.
C) Increasing the size of the average rice farm by consolidating many small farms would help to reduce the total water use by California’s rice industry.
D) Given current conditions, maintaining water price-supports for California’s rice growers would mean seriously reducing the amount of water available for vital services in the state.
E) Reducing state water subsidies to rice farmers would increase pressure on the state to reduce water subsidies for all agricultural concerns and lead to greater conservation.
Dear
sahilmshah92,
I'm happy to respond.
I will say, this prompt is a bit too polemical and judgmental to be a GMAT CR passage. The GMAT maintains a more professional and academic air.
We want to support these perspectives: "
The profligate water use that this agreement allows is intolerable given California’s growth rate and drought cycle. The state of California should cease to subsidize the waste of such a precious mineral natural resource by an unnecessary, artificially competitive industry." In other words, what about this agreement is positive harmful? What is the damage done by this agreement that must be prevented?
(A) Higher prices for rice on the world market make the import quotas maintained by the United States government less necessary.This discusses the general market conditions, but doesn't make anything about this agreement "
intolerable."
(B) Easing import quotas on foreign rice would not necessarily increase the proportion of foreign rice purchased domestically.This also discusses the general market conditions, but doesn't make anything about this agreement "
intolerable."
(C) Increasing the size of the average rice farm by consolidating many small farms would help to reduce the total water use by California’s rice industry.This would be a benefit of ending the agreement. There may or may not be other ways to achieve this goal. This is a weak strengthener, and it doesn't explain why this agreement is "
intolerable."
(D) Given current conditions, maintaining water price-supports for California’s rice growers would mean seriously reducing the amount of water available for vital services in the state.This is a powerful answer. Maintaining the agreement means cutting water for vital services throughout the state: people don't get enough to drink, houses burn down, etc. Those are seriously bad consequences, which of course would make continuing the agreement "
intolerable." This is a very strong answer.
(E) Reducing state water subsidies to rice farmers would increase pressure on the state to reduce water subsidies for all agricultural concerns and lead to greater conservation.Like (C), this would be a benefit of ending the agreement. There may or may not be other ways to achieve this goal. This is a weak strengthener, and it doesn't explain why this agreement is "
intolerable."
The only answer that really works is
(D), the OA. A clear answer, although again, the tone of the prompt argument is not GMAT-like.
Here's a more GMAT-like CR practice question:
Simian VirusDoes all this make sense?
Mike
close
Updated on: 08 May 2018, 00:05
35%
(medium)
26%
(02:47)
wrong 
