Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite

GMATNinja, @VeritasKarishma

What does the below line mean?

A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat??

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain. - WRONG. Irrelevant
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain. - WRONG. Irrelevant
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite. - WRONG. Reverse of logic is not necessarily true.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans. - WRONG. A worthy contender to look at but whether it makes enough strong a case. Not so. Not a necessary requirement.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people. - CORRECT. If not then passage falls apart.

Answer E.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.