The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in

"Which of the following is most strongly supported" means we don't need to find a typical conclusion-premise(s) structure. What are we told?

Prosperity --> increased meat and grain CONSUMPTION.
Increased grain PRODUCTION is unlikely. Well, if we're going to use more but we aren't going to make more, where is it going to come from?!?

A. Some land in Virodia that is currently used for grain production will soon be turned into pastureland for grazing cattle for meat.
Nothing in the argument tells us about conversion of land from one specific use to another. Wrong.
B. In the future, per capita income in Virodia is unlikely to increase as rapidly as it has in the past.
We are told that per capita income is going to rise but are given no information about whether it will be as fast as, slower than, or the same as the previous rate of increase. Wrong.
C. In Virodia, the amount of grain it takes to produce one pound of meat is likely to increase in coming years.
Nothing from the argument tells us anything about how much grain goes into raising meat. Wrong.
D. Grain is soon likely to make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet than ever before.
We aren't told anything about proportions of the diet. Wrong.
E. Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both.
Oh! Well that sounds nice! Sure helps explain how we're going to consume more while producing less.

Answer choice E.

Hi!

I totally agree why E is right but up to a extent,
According to me,
The first line of the passage "The country of Virodia has, until now, been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain" , i interpreted that, this implies that the country is now self sufficient and thus doesnt need any help/imports of any sorts from outside.

So i went with option A
According to A) it implies that, the grain production is not going to increase and instead of grain the cattles get thier "feed" from grazing, thus the reasoning for " increases in domestic grain production are unlikely." is justified.

Pls let me know about your opinion on this.
Thank you

The key word is to see that the first sentence says that Virodia has been self-sufficient in grain and mean UNTIL NOW.

So, that statement is about the past and the present, not about the future, whereas the conclusion is about the future.

The passage says that "INCREASES in grain production are unlikely," but the implication of (A) is that there will be a DECREASE in grain production. Since the passage says nothing that indicates that grain production will decrease, (A) is not supported.

Also, the passage doesn't imply that there is an advantage to having cattle graze rather than consume grain or indicate anything about cattle grazing at all. So, there's really no support for (A).

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.

The passage states that Virodia has been barely self-sufficient in both meat and grain, and that greater prosperity has resulted in steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, which takes several pounds of grain used as feed to produce. The passage also notes that per capita income is likely to continue rising, but increases in domestic grain production are unlikely.

The answer that is most strongly supported by this information is (E) Virodia is likely to become an importer of grain or meat or both, as the country's demand for meat is likely to continue increasing while its domestic grain production is unlikely to keep pace. This implies that Virodia will need to obtain grain and/or meat from other countries in order to meet its needs. Option (A) is unlikely since the passage states that increases in domestic grain production are unlikely, so it would not make sense for land currently used for grain production to be converted to pastureland for cattle. Option (B) is not supported by the passage, which says nothing about the rate of increase in per capita income in the future. Option (C) is also not supported by the passage, which does not give any indication of how the amount of grain needed to produce meat might change over time. Option (D) is also unsupported by the passage, which does not give any indication that grain will make up a larger proportion of the average Virodian's diet.

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.