ellenckh
I chose B and I thought it was the most logical. I still don't quite understand why B is wrong. If there is not enough grain to produce the meat, then the people cannot consume more and more meat. i.e. Eventually, meat consumption will increase less and less rapidly as the maximum meat available are going down. As a result, per capital income (which is linked to increase in meat consumption) will increase less rapidly.
Hi ellenckh.
That's an interesting question, and here's what's going on.
Per capita income and meat consumption are linked, but only in one direction. The direction is that increases in per capita income result in increases in meat consumption.
While the passage doesn't specify that the relationship is one way, we can use common knowledge and common sense in answering CR questions, and common knowledge and common sense indicate that the relationship would work in one direction - higher income results in increased meat consumption - and not in the other direction.
So, for there to be an increase in meat consumption, there has to be an increase in per capita income. On the other hand, there does not have to be an increase in meat consumption for there to be an increase in per capita income.
Thus, even if meat consumption does not increase or even decreases, per capita income could still increase.
So, (B) is not supported.