It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 22:39

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The drought in the central part of the country is estimated

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

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 03 Oct 2014
Posts: 145

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 89

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2015, 08:11
Keyword - largest affected corn fields

This means porduction needs to increase to get acceptable values that will result in no inflation

So B

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 89

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10120

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2015, 22:36
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.

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 601

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 41

Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2015, 04:21
Not an expert but prephrased assumption is:

No other option except irrigation exists

Only B fits

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 41

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Feb 2016, 03:30
Choice A and E are irrelevant. Choice C is incorrect since what will happen in the next two years does not matter.
Choice D is incorrect since it is not necessary to increase to the normal level.
Choice B is correct since it strengthen the conclusion and negating it will weaken the argument.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10120

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2016, 21:26
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.

Kudos [?]: 262 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 13

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jun 2016, 10:43
EMPOWERgmatAllenT wrote:
gmatdog wrote:
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure [ensure] inflation later.

The argument is valid only if

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
B. irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
C. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
D. irrigation will insure [ensure] that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time


CLAIM:
1) We either have to irrigate the largest affected corn fields –or—
2) Fail to irrigate now and ensure inflation later

Basically, this argument is saying, irrigate OR ELSE! We need to find an answer that shows us that irrigation is the ONLY MEANS of averting inflation.

GOAL:
Find an answer that proves that it’s irrigate or else suffer inflation.

THE OPTIONS:

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
Wrong: Shade of Gray. If other areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated yields, would that prove that we either have to irrigate or face inflation later? It points us in the right direction, but it doesn’t PROVE that we either need to irrigate or face inflation later. This is what we’d like to call a shade of gray answer.

B. irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
YES! This answer proves that we either need to irrigate or face inflation later, because this answer tells that there is no other means.

C. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
Wrong: Shade of Gray. If the heat wave and drought will persist for through the next two years, would that prove that we either have to irrigate or face inflation later? No. This answer tells us that similar conditions will persist, but it doesn’t prove that we HAVE TO irrigate to stave off inflation.

D. irrigation will insure [ensure] that corn harvests reach normal levels
Wrong: Shade of Gray. Obviously, this adds support that irrigation works, but does this prove that we either that we either have to irrigate or face inflation later? This answer might seem tempting, but it only shows that irrigation can work, but NOT that irrigation is the ONLY way. There could be many other ways in addition to irrigation that could ensure that corn harvests reach normal levels. So saying that irrigation will ensure that corn levels reach normal levels does NOT actually prove that its irrigation or else.

E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time
Wrong: Out of Focus. Does this prove that we either that we either have to irrigate or face inflation later? Even if there were funding available, helps only addresses the likelihood of feasibility, but that wouldn’t prove that we either have to irrigate or face inflation later.

Correct Answer: B. It is the only option that proves that its irrigation or else face inflation.

A side note: this is a pretty rare variation of an assumption question on the GMAT, known as a SUFFICIENT assumption question. We’re asked to find the assumption that’s sufficient for the argument to hold. GMAT assumption questions almost always ask us to find an answer taken for granted by the argument, also known as a NECESSARY assumption. SUFFICIENT Assumption questions ask us to find an assumption that essentially proves the argument, so they require a different framework to select the right answer than the typical GMAT style assumption question.

Necessary assumption questions are FAR more frequently found on the LSAT.

Also note, the context here would mean the word “insure” would have to be “ensure”.



Hi Allen,
I am not able to understand why option D cannot be an assumption.
As per my analysis of the question, we need to irrigate the affected fields now to avoid inflation later. (Here the author states an implicit assumption that irrigating the fields will have the desired effect). This is what exactly option D says that 'irrigation will ensure that corn harvests reach normal levels'.
The argument breaks down if option D is not true.

Any other way to increase the corn yield should not have any impact on the argument as we are concerned only with irrigation.

Can you please explain this ?
_________________

Please take a moment to hit Kudos if you like my post :)

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 319

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 159

Location: India
saurav: suman
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V20
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2017, 11:40
Hi expert
could you please explain why b is better than D. and why b is the answer
_________________

You have to have the darkness for the dawn to come.

Give Kudos if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 159

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 324

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 101

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GPA: 3.81
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
CAT Tests
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2017, 21:07
The solution of irrigating does not imply from the stimulus that the irrigation will bring the harvest to its normal levels. It's simply implied that irrigation will make a difference and curb the inflation to certain degree not eradicate it completely. Hence D can be eliminated.
_________________

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 101

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Jan 2016
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 29

Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.01
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 May 2017, 04:54
VerbalBot wrote:
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.



Thanks for putting these questions in 700 range.

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 29

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 370

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 196

Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2017, 08:08
I chose D too ,but negating D gives us irrigation will not insure that corn harvests reach normal levels here it can be higher or lower. Hence D is not the required assumption. Only B fits.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 196

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 400

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 478

Premium Member
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2017, 10:13
kapilhede17 wrote:
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later.

The argument is valid only if

other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time

I need help to decide bw B and D


What about C , if there is no drought and heat wave for the next 2 years , won't the argument fall apart in that case too.
_________________

- Stne

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 478

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 106

GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.48
Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2017, 20:26
stne wrote:
kapilhede17 wrote:
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later.

The argument is valid only if

other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time

I need help to decide bw B and D




What about C , if there is no drought and heat wave for the next 2 years , won't the argument fall apart in that case too.


I think C is unnecessary, because stimulus already stated that "Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years". It means no matter how long the drought and heat wave last for, their consequences still impact in two years.

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 106

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 40

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jun 2017, 22:31
kapilhede17 wrote:
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later.

The argument is valid only if

other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year
irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased
the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time

I need help to decide bw B and D


Initially choose "D" as the answer, but re-reading the paragraph and the options I understood "B" is better than "D".
The author mentions "either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later" which can be true only if "irrigation" is the only way to increase the harvest.

Notice the if else block below.

if(irrigation=true){
Good harvest and avoid inflation.
}else{
Face sure inflation later
}

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 40

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 63

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2017, 10:43
I was between B and C.

I chose C because my understanding was that the author assumes that the drought will persist the next 2 years because he/she has provided figures for increased meat prices for the next 2 years.

My predicted answer after reading the argument was that the author is assuming the drought to continue....

Can someone explain where I am wrong in my understanding?

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 63

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2017
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2017, 10:57
I guess it is D.
Explaination:
The argument states if we do not irrigate the fields then we will suffer from inflation.That could imply irrigation could help stop inflation by bringing corn harvest to normal levels

Sent from my XT1706 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 820

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Premium Member
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2017, 23:04
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 14:17
I chose "C" first but on re-reading, B makes complete sense.

The drought in the central part of the country is estimated to reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than one-third from its normal levels. Such a shortfall would subsequently increase meat and other food prices by about 17% in one year and 20% in two years. So, either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later, or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later.

The argument is valid only if

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year -Okay, let them not meet their target. Out of scope.
B. irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased -The conclusion says that either irrigate the fields and decrease the inflation or suffer at the hands of increased inflation. It means that only irrigation can decrease the inflation.
C. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years -Okay, it is a fact set. Out of scope
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels -Nowhere in the argument it's written that the harvests will reach normal levels. Out of scope
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time -Out of scope
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated   [#permalink] 19 Aug 2017, 14:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The drought in the central part of the country is estimated

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.