It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 15:23

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

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2012
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 51 [3], given: 2

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2012, 18:50
3
This post received
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36% (01:12) correct 64% (01:38) wrong based on 971 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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
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 that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 51 [3], given: 2

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Posts: 304

Kudos [?]: 216 [1], given: 38

Weight: 170lbs
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V42
WE: Analyst (Other)
Re: The drought in the central part of the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2012, 20:24
1
This post received
KUDOS
A - slightly out of context.
B - possible.
C - possible.
D - possible.
E - out of context. no mention of politics in the passage.

Basic POE gives me B, C, and D. I have a 33% chance of nailing this problem...

Looks like we can knock C out of the running. We could experience inflation without a two year drought.

So 50% chance.

Looks like B will be the answer as the conclusion of the passage does indeed imply that irrigation is the only solution.

OA...B
yay!

Kudos [?]: 216 [1], given: 38

7 KUDOS received
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 718 [7], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jun 2012, 00:20
7
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The argument evaluation:

The drought reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than normal level => increase meat and other foods prices by 17% in one year, 20% in two year.
Therefore, irrigating the largest affected corn fields will avert severe inflation latter

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year=> out of scope
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 => irrelevant
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time => out of scope

Only choice B and D are the contenders. Negating choice B and D, we will have:

B. Irrigation is not the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased => the argument is corrupted.
D. Irrigation will not insure that corn harvests reach normal levels => the conclusion of the argument does not mention whether or not the national corn yield will reach the normal level, but avert (stop) the inflation that is increasing.

=> choice B is the correct one.

With this kind of question, we can see how important the argument's conclusion is. So, learn to understand completely the argument's conclusion.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [7], given: 44

5 KUDOS received
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 14 May 2012
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 121 [5], given: 15

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.8
WE: Corporate Finance (Venture Capital)
GMAT ToolKit User
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2012, 04:23
5
This post received
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 121 [5], given: 15

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 536

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Drought - irrigation Kaplan Diagnostic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2012, 05:00
Straight (B)
..." 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"

Means:- The dependency of a good crop depends solely upon the irrigation.

So,to increase the corn yield , irrigation is the only ideal option .
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 536

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Drought - irrigation Kaplan Diagnostic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jun 2012, 05:05
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


It can not be said whether the harvest will reach normal level or not since drought will definitely affect the cultivation
but, the harvest can be significantly increased for sure when irrigation is done properly {stated in (b)}-hope this works
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

6 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1377

Kudos [?]: 1676 [6], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2012, 03:06
6
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Initially chose D. But then on re-reading made me understand my mistake: I missed normal levels.
For those who are on same lines on which I was earlier, here is the easy solution. In the premise, its stated that the corn levels have reduced to one third of their normal levels. Let the normal level be 100. Now negate B, we get that irrigation will ensure that corn harvests don't get to their normal level. What if the corn harvests reach upto 99, then the conclusion doesn't fall apart.
but if there are several other ways that the national corn yield can be significantly increased, then even if we don't spend much on irrigation then also we can't ensure inflation. The conclusion falls apart and hence the answer is B.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Kudos [?]: 1676 [6], given: 62

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10119

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

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Nov 2013, 09:43
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
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 886

Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2014, 12:06
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
i still dont understand why D is incorrect and B is right.
Can somone please explain in detail what makes B better than D.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 886

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 41

Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The drought in the central part of the country [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2014, 23:09
tuanquang269 wrote:
The argument evaluation:

The drought reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than normal level => increase meat and other foods prices by 17% in one year, 20% in two year.
Therefore, irrigating the largest affected corn fields will avert severe inflation latter

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year=> out of scope
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 => irrelevant
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time => out of scope

Only choice B and D are the contenders. Negating choice B and D, we will have:

B. Irrigation is not the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased => the argument is corrupted.
D. Irrigation will not insure that corn harvests reach normal levels => the conclusion of the argument does not mention whether or not the national corn yield will reach the normal level, but avert (stop) the inflation that is increasing.

=> choice B is the correct one.

With this kind of question, we can see how important the argument's conclusion is. So, learn to understand completely the argument's conclusion.



Hi ,

I am still confused between B and D .
Conclusion : irrigating the largest affected corn fields will avert severe inflation latter.
for B i am not sure how the argument is corrupted . I am right is saying for
B : "irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased"

if this is true then irrigation will avert inflation . Confused here on how since yield has been significantly increased can be still less than normal levels
else if this is false ( irrigation is the not the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased) meaning there are other means of increasing yields then the conclusion falls apart. Since other means can avert irrigation .

D: irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels

If this is true then irrigation will avert inflation . since crops will reach normal levels
else if this is false ( irrigation will not ensure that corn harvests reach normal levels ) .. Irrigation cannot avert inflation . Conclusion falls apart .

Please help me clear my doubt
Thanks and Regards ,
shelrod007

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 41

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 172

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 41

Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2014, 23:22
Marcab wrote:
Initially chose D. But then on re-reading made me understand my mistake: I missed normal levels.
For those who are on same lines on which I was earlier, here is the easy solution. In the premise, its stated that the corn levels have reduced to one third of their normal levels. Let the normal level be 100. Now negate B, we get that irrigation will ensure that corn harvests don't get to their normal level. What if the corn harvests reach upto 99, then the conclusion doesn't fall apart.
but if there are several other ways that the national corn yield can be significantly increased, then even if we don't spend much on irrigation then also we can't ensure inflation. The conclusion falls apart and hence the answer is B.





tuanquang269 wrote:
The argument evaluation:

The drought reduce this year's national corn harvest by more than normal level => increase meat and other foods prices by 17% in one year, 20% in two year.
Therefore, irrigating the largest affected corn fields will avert severe inflation latter

A. other American agricultural areas are also not expected to meet their anticipated corn yields this year=> out of scope
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 => irrelevant
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time => out of scope

Only choice B and D are the contenders. Negating choice B and D, we will have:

B. Irrigation is not the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased => the argument is corrupted.
D. Irrigation will not insure that corn harvests reach normal levels => the conclusion of the argument does not mention whether or not the national corn yield will reach the normal level, but avert (stop) the inflation that is increasing.

=> choice B is the correct one.

With this kind of question, we can see how important the argument's conclusion is. So, learn to understand completely the argument's conclusion.



Hi ,

I am still confused between B and D .
Conclusion : irrigating the largest affected corn fields will avert severe inflation latter.
for B i am not sure how the argument is corrupted . I am right is saying for
B : "irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased"

if this is true then irrigation will avert inflation . Confused here on how since yield has been significantly increased can be still less than normal levels
else if this is false ( irrigation is the not the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased) meaning there are other means of increasing yields then the conclusion falls apart. Since other means can avert irrigation .

D: irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels

If this is true then irrigation will avert inflation . since crops will reach normal levels
else if this is false ( irrigation will not ensure that corn harvests reach normal levels ) .. Irrigation cannot avert inflation . Conclusion falls apart .

Please help me clear my doubt
Thanks and Regards ,
shelrod007

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 41

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 958

Kudos [?]: 1847 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2014, 01:06
I think D is correct.

B. Irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased.
Irrigation is the only medicine which can increase yield significantly. Whether that "significant increase" would be sufficient to avert the inflation or not ? we cant say... E.g Doctor claims that some medicine can significantly heal a fractured knee, but does it ensure that person can start playing football after taking such medicine... No.. similarly even if irrigation is the only way it doesn't make argument much believable.

D. Irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels.
Yes this is the right option, here its raising question whether Irrigation insure harvests to reach normal level.
Yes: then definitely we can avert inflation...
No: we cant.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1847 [0], given: 229

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 958

Kudos [?]: 1847 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2014, 01:32
Either we spend a small amount now to irrigate the largest affected corn fields and avert severe inflation later,
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels... yes then definitely we can avert the inflation... negate.. No irrigation will not insure corn harvest reach normal level.... argument falls apart.

At Yes option D bolsters the claim at No argument falls apart... this is the quality of assumption.

or else fail to irrigate now and insure inflation later. (do not irrigate and guarantee inflation, means no other method is available to avert inflation)
B. IF irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased ... Yes... irrigation is the only way that can increase yield significantly... will "significant increase" curb inflation... cant say.

No.. there are other method as well to increase yield... such as genetic engineered corn etc... so failure to irrigate and guarantee of inflation doesn't sustain... bcz there are other methods as well to curb inflation.

Answer No is breaking the argument extremely but answer Yes is not bolstering the argument to make it absolutely believable that irrigation will yield sufficient yield to curb inflation.
Thus B can't be taken as assumption.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1847 [0], given: 229

2 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2010
Posts: 357

Kudos [?]: 270 [2], given: 87

Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Apr 2014, 01:25
2
This post received
KUDOS
D is incorrect because the conclusion is only talking about 'avoiding severe inflation' and not about 'avoiding inflation'. So, a certain bit of inflation is okay.

In D, if the inflation doesn't reach normal levels, then it may cause a mild inflation.

Kudos [?]: 270 [2], given: 87

1 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1978

Kudos [?]: 719 [1], given: 355

Concentration: Finance
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2014, 16:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Can we get a good review on all the answer choices by Verbal expert here? This is a great question!

Cheers
J :)

Kudos [?]: 719 [1], given: 355

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 100

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 67

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

Show Tags

New post 14 Jun 2014, 05:20
PiyushK wrote:
I think D is correct.

B. Irrigation is the only way that the national corn yield can be significantly increased.
Irrigation is the only medicine which can increase yield significantly. Whether that "significant increase" would be sufficient to avert the inflation or not ? we cant say... E.g Doctor claims that some medicine can significantly heal a fractured knee, but does it ensure that person can start playing football after taking such medicine... No.. similarly even if irrigation is the only way it doesn't make argument much believable.

D. Irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels.
Yes this is the right option, here its raising question whether Irrigation insure harvests to reach normal level.
Yes: then definitely we can avert inflation...
No: we cant.



Option B is better than the D because if there are other ways to increase the yield f corn then conclusion irrigation is only way to ave inflation will fall apart ....

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 67

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 7

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

Show Tags

New post 23 Aug 2014, 02:12
B is fasle ! When you negate B, it does not destroy the conclusion! it means that there is other way ( + irrigation ) to fight against the drought! not only one thing does not mean this thing is out of scope!

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 118

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

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2014, 08:16
Conclusion
Spending a small amount of money on irrigation now will prevent inflation in the future

Premise 1)
The drought will reduce this year's harvest
Premise 2)
This increase will lead to inflation

A) This option is Out Of Context(OFC) because we aren't concerned about the other parts of the country, but we're concerned about the central part
B) This is the correct answer. The conclusion states that spending money on irrigation will prevent inflation. But what if there are other methods to reduce inflation. Hence, this option effectively becomes the assumption, for without it the conclusion does not hold true.
C) We're told that the drought will lead to inflation no matter how long it is for. So saying that the drought will continue for 2 years doesn't make it an assumption
D) We cannot assume this statement. Maybe, we don't need to normalize the harvesting condition. Maybe, just a little improvement will go a long way in reducing inflation.
E)This is again an OFC statement. Politics has got nothing to do with inflation in this argument.

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 118

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 24 [3], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2014, 11:52
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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[/quote]
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”.
_________________

Allen T.
EMPOWERgmat Advisor
http://www.empowergmat.com

EMPOWERgmat GMAT Club Page, Study Plans, & Discounts
http://gmatclub.com/blog/courses/empowergmat-discount/?fl=menu

Image

Kudos [?]: 24 [3], given: 0

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 531

Kudos [?]: 621 [0], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
The drought in the central part of the country is estimated [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2014, 08:02
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.
Why?
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.

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
Only relevant options are A and B.
Now A says other area are also not expected to meet.
We don't know about the contribution of other area in overall production. If CP is major player/area in this, then other areas yield wont help much in averting the mentioned inflation.So there is shadow of doubt reg this option.
Lets check B.
If irrigation is not the only way then even if we don't irrigate, we can avert the problem using another approaches. This in turn weakens the conclusion.
"Either we irrigate now or face inflation later."

C. the heat wave and drought will persist through the next two years
D. irrigation will insure that corn harvests reach normal levels
E. it is politically feasible for government authorities to spend money irrigating fields at the present time
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards :)

Kudos [?]: 621 [0], given: 606

The drought in the central part of the country is estimated   [#permalink] 03 Sep 2014, 08:02

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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®.