The agricultural market throughout the world is struggling with

Question

The agricultural market throughout the world is struggling with a significant reduction in the production of rice, and it is feared that demand will far outstrip supply in the coming months. However, Belvania’s export shipments of rice have increased from a total of $21.2 million last quarter to $27.6 million in this quarter. Clearly, Belvania’s production of rice has increased.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

A) Some countries may be able to increase their production of rice by using innovative methods.

B) Local demand for rice in Belvania has decreased by at least 15 percent during this quarter.

C) Because of the shortage of rice, the cost of production of rice-products has also increased.

D) Increase in the demand for rice has not resulted in an increase in its selling price.

E) Belvania is the world’s largest exporter of rice.

Prashant10692 · Answer

+C.
Agricultural market is shrinking and production has gone down. Still, Belvania’s export shipments of rice have increased from a total of $21.2 million last quarter to $27.6 million in this quarter. Clearly,   Belvania’s production of rice has increased. 
 
 As we can see that we need to strengthen the author's claim that even though the market shrank, Belvania's production has Increased.

A) Some countries may be able to increase their production of rice by using innovative methods.
 Irrelevant.

B) Local demand for rice in Belvania has decreased by at least 15 percent during this quarter.
 This is a weakener. If the local demand has decreased than the added export is because of this and not because of the increased production.

C) Because of the shortage of rice, the cost of production of rice-products has also increased.
 Out of scope. Provides no reason to strengthen the claim that belvania's production of rice has increased.

D) Increase in the demand for rice has not resulted in an increase in its selling price.

Perfect. If the increase in demand in rice has not led to the increase in prices of rice. It eliminates the possibility that some other factor is responsible for the increase in revenues. Removes an alternate possibility.
Hence a strengthener.

E) Belvania is the world’s largest exporter of rice. 
Irrelevant.

aaba · Answer

The first sentence that talks about the world's production and the demand is just a distractor. The main premise and the main conclusion is the second sentence. Therefore, D directly connects with "$21.2 million last quarter to $27.6 million in this quarter."

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo D is the answer as we have same price and the increase in revenue must have come from more production.

Reema18 · Answer

Strengtheners should would make you believe in the conclusion even more.
So giving reasons which could help in removing scenarios which break the conclusion, is a potential strengthener as well.

In this case, conclusion says A(higher production) Caused B(Increased export)
if we could say C causes B, it will break the conclusion.

So by saying C didn't cause B is a strengthener here. 
 Hence Ans is D 
Increase in the demand for rice has not resulted in an increase in its selling price.

zamiraolortegui · Answer

My logic: 
If Belvania's export shipments of rice have increased and we want to say that Belvania's production of rice has increased, we must make sure that the exports haven't increased because of less local demand in Belvania!
If during the last quarter Belvania produced the same as before, but the local demand decreased, then Belvania could export more (because it has more left overs) but that doesn't mean that the production has increased!
Option "(D) Increase in the demand for rice has not resulted in an increase in its selling price" It's telling us exactly the opposite. Belvania's local demand has increased AND from the passage we know that the exports have increased too --> Then, the production must have increased

Please correct me if i'm wrong

olito · Answer

What is the conclusion of the argument  : Belvania’s production of rice has increased

Structure of the argument :  the value of the exports has increased, therefore the rice production must have increased.

The argument can't stand without a crucial information : is the raise in exports price due to a price increase ? 
If yes = weakens the conclusion 
If no = then the conclusion is strengthened.

The answer that perfectly explains that is D : Increase in the demand for rice has not resulted in an increase in its selling price. 
In other words, the increase in export value is not due to a price increase. It's the information we needed !

pkm9995 · Answer

I find it difficult to agree with the answer.If D has to be correct then we have to have an assumption that "increase in selling price will increase the exports". Please explain....

ankur619 · Answer

As the argument is saying revenue increased from 1st quarter to 2nd quarter from $21.2 to $27.6 million.

So the increased revenue (27.6 million) is not because of the increase in selling price of the rice but because of the increase in production.

Let's take a hypothetical situation in which the  price increased  with the same amount of production.

Case I : Say selling price increased from 1st quarter to 2nd quarter.

Suppose the selling price of rice is $1 per bag in 1st quarter. 
Revenue = selling price x units sold. 
 = $1 x 21.2 million units
 = $ 21.2 million

So total of 21.2 million units were produced.

Suppose the selling price of rice increased from $1 to $1.29 per bag in 2nd quarter.

Revenue : $1.29 x 21.2 million units
 : $ 27.6 million ( approx)

So still 21.2 million units were produced. So production is not increasing.

If this were the case then this will weaken the argument.

CHOICE D defends the argument against this hypothetical "weakener"

Case II : Say selling price did not increase. 
Suppose the selling price of rice is $1 per bag.

So in the first quarter
Revenue = selling price x units sold. 
 = $1 x 21.2 million
 = $21.2 million

2nd quarter
Revenue = $1 x 27.6 million
 = $ 27.6 million

So 27.6- 21.2 = 6.4 million more units were produced in 2nd quarter.

Clearly, production increased in this situation.

Posted from my mobile device

l01os · Answer

Answer D is the correct one here.

pkm9995 · Answer

ankur619  Increase in selling price does not mean that it has increased from 1 to 1.29...it can increase from 1 to 1.005. So by figures

Now 
revenue=$27.6 million
Units produced= 27.6/1.005=27.462

Previously 
Revenue= $21.2 million
Units produced=21.2/1=21.2

So even with increase in price production has increased.

pkm9995 · Answer

I feel A is a better option .....

ankur619 · Answer

Yes you are right. I was just using an example to explain the answer.

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

TheNightKing · Answer

After reading the argument, the only statement I paraphrased was but has increase not resulted from the price increase?

Option D just tells that exactly. Hence D

MrMBB · Answer

In argument the conclusion is the production of rice in belvania have increased. Comparing A & D. In D it shows the increase in revenue from export is not due to increased price but increase export quantity. The increased export quantity can be because of two reason - 1. increased production or 2. decreased consumption. So we have to additionally assume the increase in export is due to increase in production. So I am confused between A & D.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

MrMBB

You're right that price stability is not the only assumption. Certainly, other factors could have led to this increase in export value. Decreased consumption is one, but it could also be surplus inventory from previous seasons, a shift in the proportion of pricier varieties, etc.

However, A doesn't address what happened in Belvania at all. It just says that it's possible for some countries to increase production in the future. It doesn't address the past, and even if it did, it would be insufficient to strengthen the argument. In general, we can't strengthen a causal argument simply by saying that the proposed causation is theoretically possible. We need new information that increases the LIKELIHOOD that the proposed cause is the actual cause. Consider someone who is accused of murder. The prosecution can't strengthen its case very well by simply establishing that murder is possible. That would only matter if we had a reasonable expectation that it WASN'T possible! Rather, a strengthen would give information to make it look more likely that this particular person committed the crime, either by ruling out other culprits or by connecting the defendant more clearly to this particular crime. That's what any causal strengthener has to do. (And by extension, a weakener has to do the opposite--point toward a more likely alternative or show how the proposed cause was not likely to lead to the outcome in question.)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The agricultural market throughout the world is struggling with

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The agricultural market throughout the world is struggling with

Prep Toolkit

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