GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 24 Feb 2020, 01:47

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 19
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 23 Jan 2019, 04:35
12
77
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:46) correct 36% (02:03) wrong based on 1869 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Originally posted by HygeinicGangster on 16 Jan 2011, 06:22.
Last edited by Bunuel on 23 Jan 2019, 04:35, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1185
GPA: 3.77
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2011, 22:02
30
7
Hi :)

Welcome to the Club!

Look you have to dismantle this argument to premises and conclusion:

Premises:
- before meat and grain were enough
- per capita income will rise.
- as a result growing prosperity in Baurisia per capita consumption of meat will increase
- and by the way: (it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat)

Conclusion:
- they will import grain.


Now you must think about it in this way:
if import grain -> feed animals-> kill them->make meat-> meat to Baurisians
if import meat -> meat to Baurisians

In second chain you eliminate the the unnecessary chain "feed animals-> kill them->make meat->" wich is less economical way of producing meat.

Now, just take off the detail in blue, you will see that grain is irrrelevant here. The argument will look like "they had enough meat, but soon because their income increases they will need more meat" So why to buy grain if they need meat indeed?

:)
_________________
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 19
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jan 2011, 06:27
I think I can understand that the reason behind the answer being D is based on this part of stimulus: "and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat." But this statement seems to give only the comparative measure of meat and grain, not necessarily imply that several pounds of grain can be substituted by meat. Can someone please explain?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 19
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2011, 08:13
Aha I see now. So grain was a distraction. However, in that case the problem becomes too simple to be a question.

I though of the chain "if import grain -> feed animals-> kill them->make meat-> meat to Baurisians" that you presented, but I know that animals eat grass not grain. Therefore I dismissed that reasoning. But in the end the whole grain story is artificially thrust upon the basic argument about meat self sufficiency. Thanks for clarification, appreciate it.
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: mission completed!
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Posts: 1185
GPA: 3.77
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2011, 08:27
2
HygeinicGangster wrote:
Aha I see now. So grain was a distraction. However, in that case the problem becomes too simple to be a question.

I though of the chain "if import grain -> feed animals-> kill them->make meat-> meat to Baurisians" that you presented, but I know that animals eat grass not grain. Therefore I dismissed that reasoning. But in the end the whole grain story is artificially thrust upon the basic argument about meat self sufficiency. Thanks for clarification, appreciate it.


You are welcome: )

I would say that grain or grass is less relevant here.
_________________
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 85
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
GMAT Date: 03-04-2014
GPA: 3.77
WE: Analyst (Retail Banking)
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2014, 21:43
1
I initially fell for (B) but then I realized it was already mentioned in the question, so (D) was then the only viable answer.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 85
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
GMAT Date: 03-04-2014
GPA: 3.77
WE: Analyst (Retail Banking)
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jan 2014, 22:18
11
2
cherukuri1011 wrote:
Abdul29 wrote:
I initially fell for (B) but then I realized it was already mentioned in the question, so (D) was then the only viable answer.

Hi,
Can you please clarify why B is not the answer


(B) "The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels."

As you can see, this answer choice just gives you a break-down of the consumption accross income levels; which serves as a classic shell-answer. In the question itself, it is clearly stated that "with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat", so even if the consumption is the same accross all levels, in total, it is increasing.

Thus, B does not directly attack the conclusion of the arguement, which is the act of importing grain.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 302
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2014, 16:37
5
2
Conclusion:Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Reasoning: The correct answer weakens the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain. The incorrect answer supports or is neutral to the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain.

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. Wrong - if meat and grain is consumed more, then grain imports are likely. Thus, the conclusion is supported.

B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels. Wrong - Neutral. Even if consumption of meat is the same, the statement neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.

C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. Wrong - Out of scope. The conclusion depends upon whether or not Baurisia is importing grain.

D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. Correct - If it is more economical to import meat than grain, then Baurisia is more likely to import meat than to import grain. Thus, the conclusion is weakened.

E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. Wrong - Neutral. Even if the country's population has remained relatively stable, the country is not more or less likely to import grain.

IMO D
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 144
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2015, 01:51
2
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat.---------This line denotes a fact or premise. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, an it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. ---/** This denotes the basis of the argument/** Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely,-----/**This denotes the fact/** Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.- This is the conclusion of the argument.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weaken the argument?

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

The concept says that you can't deny the premise/fact/evidence, but you can deny the reasoning. the reasoning here is more grain will be required to produce meat. One more fact in the argument is increases in domestic grain production is unlikely.

Let's say that in place of option D, it would have been that a viral crop disease has crippled the main country where the Baurisia is likely to import the grain from.
.
Which one would be correct then?

Any expert. help me to get deep into this.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Posts: 203
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V26
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Feb 2017, 05:55
I'm little bit confused about option C.to weaken the argument we need to find two alternate way.One way is to import meat or another way is to produce more grain.Now both C and D are talking about importing meat but C is a little bit masked and D is direct.So why C is not the right choice??
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2838
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Feb 2017, 06:37
1
techiesam wrote:
I'm little bit confused about option C.to weaken the argument we need to find two alternate way.One way is to import meat or another way is to produce more grain.Now both C and D are talking about importing meat but C is a little bit masked and D is direct.So why C is not the right choice??


The argument indicates that the requirement of meat in Baurisia is going to increase (premise 1), and therefore the requirement of grain is also going to increase (conclusion), because one pound of meat production requires several pounds of grain (premise 2). However the argument assumes that the only source of meat in Baurisia is grains; the argument overlooks the possibility that meat can be supplied by some other means, such as, by importing. Therefore a comparison between grain import and meat import would be a good choice for answering this question. Option D makes this comparison and thereby attacks the link between the premise 2 and conclusion.

Option C does not make it clear whether the price of meat would be low enough in those likely exporting countries so as to make meat import more economical than grain import. No Information is given about grains in this option. Moreover an additional assumption is required that higher consumption results in higher price. Option D is a more direct way and leaves no uncretainty about the advantage of meat import over grain import. Therefore option D is better than option C.
Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1343
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2017, 22:30
2
2
HygeinicGangster wrote:
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.


How to Attack a Causal Conclusion

Whenever you identify a causal relationship in the conclusion of a GMAT problem, immediately prepare to either weaken or strengthen the argument. Attacking a cause and effect relationship in Weaken questions almost always consists of performing one of the following tasks:

A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect

Because the author believes there is only one cause, identifying another cause weakens the conclusion.

B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the cause always produces the effect, any scenario where the cause occurs and the effect does not weaken the conclusion.

C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the effect is always produced by the same cause, any scenario where the effect occurs and the cause does not weaken the conclusion.

D. Show that the stated relationship is reversed

Because the author believes that the cause and effect relationship is correctly stated, showing that the relationship is backwards (the claimed effect is actually the cause of the claimed cause) undermines the conclusion.

E. Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement

If the data used to make a causal statement are in error, then the validity of the causal claim is in question.


Cause : Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat

Effect : Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain

B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the cause always produces the effect, any scenario where the cause occurs and the effect does not weaken the conclusion.

Answer : (D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
_________________
"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 228
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2018, 21:22
1
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

* QUICKLY IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.
> TASK: WEAKEN!


(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
- Opposite. If people increase their consumption of grain, this STRENGTHENS the conclusion!

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
- Out of scope. Who cares how the consumption of meat is spread across the people of Baurisia?

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
- Out of scope. Who cares about countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat?

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
- Correct. This weakens the idea that Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain. Why would it import grain when demand for meat is going up and it is more economical for them to just import meat?

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.
- Out of scope. Who cares about the population growth? This doesn't address the import of grain.

Kudos please if you find this helpful :)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2019, 20:46
In CR, one has to work with provided data only. There has been no mention of how much grain they require for animals feeding and
That's why they updated the similar question in newer formats.
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 585
GMAT 1: 670 Q46 V36
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jul 2019, 04:00
HygeinicGangster wrote:
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack


Weaken Q



Need to find a choice that shows that grain will not be imported.

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. - Wrong: Irrelevant

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels. - Wrong: Irrelevant comparison

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. - Wrong: Irrelevant

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. - Correct

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. - Wrong: Irrelevant
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Oct 2015
Posts: 2
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2019, 15:20
1
I honestly feel this question is not worded well. A simple "therefore" before "Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain" could have helped. The way it is currently in the topic, I assumed it was stated as a fact and not part of the author's opinion or assumption of future imports.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 May 2014
Posts: 25
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2019, 05:56
Here's how i broke it down:
1. Any statement strengthening/neutral to is incorrect for a weaken question, truly needs to weaken the conclusion.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. --> Strengthens the conclusion instead of weakening.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels. --> Okay, so even if prosperity went up, consumption across income levels increases in a similar fashion, so Neutral

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.--> No relevance, neutral

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. --> Weakens since there is no need to import anymore

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. --> Population is stable, but meat consumption is still increasing with prosperity. so no effect really.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jun 2019
Posts: 1
Location: Singapore
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2019, 05:41
1
Hi there,

Can someone please explain why we eliminate B?
In the concluding sentence, there is assumed between individual income and food consumption - "since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further......Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain" (higher income --> higher meat consumption -->requirement for more grain"

And B is saying that even within current income levels, it's not the case that those with higher income eat more meat. This would lead us to believe that even if incomes rise, meat consumption will not go up.

Thanks!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Status: Gathering chakra
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 443
Premium Member
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2019, 11:06
HygeinicGangster wrote:
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?


P1: per capita consumption of meat increasing, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat
P2: per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further
P3: increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely
C: Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain

We have to weaken the idea that further increases in meat consumption will cause the country to import grain.

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
Out of scope, we are not talking about people generally. Also doesn't help because if they don't produce more grain they still have to import more.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same across all income levels.
Irrelevant, just tells us that the subset of the population at each income level eats the same amount of meat which doesn't add any new information to weaken.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
Out of scope, we don't care about other countries. We only care about showing that this country will not import grain.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
Directly attacks the conclusion -- if they can import meat more cheaply than grain, there is no reason to import grain.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.
If the total population decreased drastically maybe they wouldn't have to import grain, but since it stayed the same it doesn't help weaken at all.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both   [#permalink] 02 Oct 2019, 11:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne