The country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient

Question

The country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Rowolia 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 Rowolian per capita income is almost certain to rise further and increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Rowolia will soon need to import grain.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. When people’s consumption of meat increases, their consumption of grains and other foodstuffs tends to fall.

B. Future demands for meat by Rowolians over and above current consumption levels will not be satisfied by the importation of meat from other countries.

C. There are currently no laws in Rowolia prohibiting the importation of meat from abroad, nor will such laws be enacted in the near future.

D. The per capita consumption of meat in Rowolia is roughly the same across all income levels.

E. In Rowolia, meat is subject to strict government price controls but grain is not.

Bunuel · Answer

Similar questing from GMAT Pre Focus mocks: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-country- ... 07856.html

guddo · Answer

The country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Rowolia 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 Rowolian per capita income is almost certain to rise further and increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Rowolia will soon need to import grain.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The argument says higher income will increase meat consumption, and producing more meat requires more grain. Since domestic grain production is unlikely to increase, Rowolia will need to import grain.  The argument assumes  that Rowolia will satisfy the extra demand for meat by producing more meat domestically, not by  importing meat directly .

A. When people’s consumption of meat increases, their consumption of grains and other foodstuffs tends to fall.

This is not required. Even if direct grain consumption falls somewhat, the argument is about the grain needed to produce additional meat.

B. Future demands for meat by Rowolians over and above current consumption levels will not be satisfied by the importation of meat from other countries.

This is correct. If Rowolia imports meat instead of producing the extra meat domestically, it may not need extra grain to feed animals. So the argument depends on assuming that future extra meat demand will not be met through meat imports.

C. There are currently no laws in Rowolia prohibiting the importation of meat from abroad, nor will such laws be enacted in the near future.

This is not required. In fact, if meat imports are allowed, that could weaken the claim that Rowolia must import grain.

D. The per capita consumption of meat in Rowolia is roughly the same across all income levels.

This is irrelevant. The argument needs only the trend that rising income leads to more meat consumption overall.

E. In Rowolia, meat is subject to strict government price controls but grain is not.

This does not matter. The argument is about grain demand caused by meat production, not about price controls.

Answer: (B)

MartyMurray · Answer

The country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Rowolia 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 Rowolian per capita income is almost certain to rise further and increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Rowolia will soon need to import grain.

Conclusion:

Rowolia will soon need to import grain

All the other statements in the passage provide support for that conclusion.

So, we see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: Meat consumption is likely to increase, and grain is needed for producing meat. So, since grain production is unlikely to increase, Rowolia will soon need to import grain.

The argument seems pretty ironclad. At the same time, if we consider it carefully, we can see that there is a change in topic from the support to the conclusion. The supporting evidence is centered on meat consumption and production, whereas the conclusion is about importing grain.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

This is an Assumption question. So, the correct answer will state something that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.

A. When people’s consumption of meat increases, their consumption of grains and other foodstuffs tends to fall.

Rather than help to support the conclusion, this choice weakens the case for the conclusion.

After all, if this choice is true, then even though grain is needed for producing meat, Rowolia may not need to import grain. After all, if this choice is true, Rowolians will likely reduce their consumption of grain as they increase consumption of meat, possibly leaving sufficient grain available for meat production even without importation of grain.

Eliminate.

B. Future demands for meat by Rowolians over and above current consumption levels will not be satisfied by the importation of meat from other countries.

This choice is interesting.

The support for the conclusion hinges on the fact that meat consumption will increase and that, therefore, more grain will be needed for meat production.

But what if demand for meat by Rowolians above current consumption levels WILL be satisfied by the importation of meat from other countries? In that case, Rowolia may not need to import grain because it won't increase production of meat. It will simply get it from other countries.

So, for the evidence that meat consumption is likely to increase to effectively support the conclusion that Rowolia will need to import grain, this choice has to be true,

Keep.

C. There are currently no laws in Rowolia prohibiting the importation of meat from abroad, nor will such laws be enacted in the near future.

Concluding that Rowolia will need to import grain doesn't require assuming that there are no laws prohibiting importation of meat. After all, laws prohibiting importation of meat wouldn't stop importation of grain.

Eliminate.

D. The per capita consumption of meat in Rowolia is roughly the same across all income levels.

This choice doesn't have to be true for the argument to work.

After all, even if per capita consumption of meat in Rowolia is NOT roughly the same across all income levels, as long as "per capita," meaning, basically, "average," meat consumption increases, the need for grain for meat production will increase.

So, even if this choice is not true, it still could make sense to conclude that Rowolia will need to import grain.

Eliminate.

E. In Rowolia, meat is subject to strict government price controls but grain is not.

This basically means that the price of grain could increase because it's not controlled.

At the same time, the argument works even if this choice isn't true.

After all, as long as more grain is needed than can be produced in Rowolia, Rowolia will need to import grain to satisfy that need, regardless of whether the price of grain increases.

So, even if this choice isn't true, the evidence provided supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   B

AshishK0721 · Answer

Why is option C wrong here? If we negate it and if there are laws prohibiting import of meat, won't it break the conclusion? Or does the logic work like even if there are some laws prohibiting import of meat, there are other laws which aren't and hence the conclusion won't be broken?

MartyMurray · Answer

The conclusion is that Rowolia will need to import grain. Laws prohibiting import of meat wouldn't affect importation of grain.

K812 · Answer

Conclusion- R will need to import grain

Meat consumption per person is increasing and going to increase further and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat

Production of grain can not increase

Assumptions-

There is a direct correlation between income and meat consumption- it is going to increase with increase in income

The current production of grain will not be able to meet the consumption demand of it- the demand for grain consumption (through meat) will increase with supply not increasing

A. This is not an assumption- in fact it is actually attacking one of the assumptions

B. If meat is not imported enough, it will have to be produced domestically that will increase its demand- correct

C. No law would not mean automatically that R is going to import meat from outside

D. Irrelevant. Whether its same or not across all income levels. the fact is per capita consumption is increasing and is going to increase further- this increase in income and thus consumption need to have equitable distribution

E. This talks about the possibility of grain's price shooting up but that's not the concern of the argument- its about whether grain will need to be imported.

dhairya18 · Answer

CONCLUSION: Rowolia will soon need to import grain.

LINE OF REASONING:
Premise: Rising incomes lead to higher per capita meat consumption.
Premise: Producing 1 lb of meat requires several lbs of grain.
Premise: Domestic grain production cannot be increased.
Conclusion: Rowolia must import grain to meet the food demand.

STRUCTURAL FLAW / REASONING GAP: Alternative Solution Gap. The author assumes that Rowolia will meet its increased meat appetite exclusively by raising more animals domestically (requiring imported feed grain), rather than bypassing domestic farming by importing processed meat directly from abroad.

PURE DEDUCTIVE PRE-PHASE:
For Rowolia to be forced to import grain, the country must not fulfill its growing meat demand by importing finished meat directly from other nations.

OPTION ANALYSIS:
(A) Incorrect. Human direct consumption of grain is secondary to the massive grain volume required to feed livestock, as established by the conversion ratio in the premises.
(B) Correct. This directly mirrors our deductive pre-phase. It eliminates the alternative route of importing finished meat, forcing the country to raise livestock domestically and import feed grain. (Negation: If extra meat demand IS satisfied by importing meat, local livestock production doesn't expand, and Rowolia will NOT need to import grain, shattering the conclusion).
(C) Incorrect. Opposite effect / Logical trap. If meat imports are allowed and legal, Rowolia is more likely to import meat instead of grain, which works against the author's conclusion.
(D) Incorrect. Irrelevant distribution detail. As long as national aggregate income and per capita consumption increase overall, demographic breakdowns across income tiers do not alter total grain demand.
(E) Incorrect. Out of scope. Government price controls do not change the biological feed ratio or the physical availability of grain.

The country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient

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 country of Rowolia has, until now, been narrowly self-sufficient

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