fluke wrote:
GMATmission wrote:
Rosen: One cannot prepare a good meal from bad food, produce good food from bad soil, maintain good soil without good farming, or have good farming without a culture that places value on the proper maintenance of all its natural resources so that needed supplies are always available.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from Rosen's statement?
NO Culture->NOT(Good Farming)->NOT(Good Soil)->(NOT)Good Food->(NOT)Good Meal
(A) The creation of good meals depends on both natural and cultural conditions.
Yes. It does. Good Meal comes at the end. It depends on everything prior to that. Let's rule out others.
(B) Natural resources cannot be maintained properly without good farming practices.
We know only reverse is true:NO Culture->NOT(Good Farming).
(C) Good soil is a prerequisite of good farming.
Again. Opposite.
(D) Any society with good cultural values will have a good cuisine.
For Having a good meal- at least ALL in the chain must be true, but just their mere presence won't necessarily make good cuisine. There may be other requirements for a good cuisine that's not mentioned in the passage. Remember, we need Must be true, not May be true.
(E) When food is bad, it is because of poor soil and, ultimately, bad farming practices.
Could be; but not necessarily true. Food could be bad because of natural calamity, who knows. We just know that if the food is GOOD; at least everything in the chain is TRUE.
Ans: "A"
I am still confused between A & E,
going by the logic if a leads to b, then if not b, then not a ......
now applying same logic to option E, it seems correct
if stimulus states Good Farming->Good Soil->Good Food, then if not good food ( bad food ) then not good soil ( bad soil) and bad farming practices
Pls clarify whr I am getting it wrong