The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur

Question

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels. Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states.

Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?

(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.

(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.

(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.

(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.

(E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.

GyanOne · Answer

Should be E

A: No information to decide on the cost-effectiveness of corn. Insufficient. 
B: No information to decide on how much soil is needed to support corn cultivation. Incorrect. 
C: Nowhere does the author say that soil conservation is the responsibility of the federal govt alone. Incorrect.
D: The stimulus says that the federal govt should spend more on conservation. It does not talk about the distribution of federal govt expenditures among the states. Incorrect.
E: The passage states "federal expenditures.......have remained at ridiculously low levels". This is enough to conclude that the federal govt should spend much more on soil conversation. CORRECT.

E it is.

Marcab · Answer

Hii Gyanone.
The removal of top soil and the less expenditure by federal government aren't simultaneous events? I mean, since the two are simultaneous so will the increase in one event lead to an increase in the other?

Archit143 · Answer

I narrowed it to D and E...Went on to select D but i do not think it is the right answer. The argument on whole talks about the federal expenses on the soil conservation.

D is incorrect since just a point is mentioned about allocation of funds to state..it can not be main point....

gmacforjyoab · Answer

Indecisive between D and E . I would go for E , since most of the premise focuses on how little the fed gov is doing for soil conservation.
below line stresses on it stating the expenditures on it have remained at  ridiculously  low levels.
Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at  ridiculously  low levels.

Could you please revert on the official answer ?

Thanks,
Jyothi

ppskc1989 · Answer

The main point of the argument is "Although a very valuable resource in the form of soil is being lost during the production of corn, the federal government is doing less than adequate for the conservation of soil. " 
Now let us look at the options.

Option A :  Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
 Unlike the argument, the emphasis here is on corn.
 Hence it is incorrect .

Option B :  A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
 The argument isn't talking about the requirements to be met for the cultivation of corn.
 Hence it is incorrect.

Option C :  Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
 The argument is only telling that the expenditure on soil conservation is low and may be implying that it needs to be increased. But it is in no way stating or implying that it is the federal government's responsibility. 
 So this option too is incorrect .

Option D :  The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
 This might be a fact stated in the argument. But the main point in the argument is that federal government has been spending less. It might also have been implying that the expenditure needs to be increased. But to judge the low expenditure as inequitable/unfair requires us to make assumptions. 
 Hence this option too might be incorrect, although it seems to be close to the answer .

Option E :  The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.
 The phrase "ridiculously low levels" in the sentence "federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels." actually implies that the government might need to spend more on the soil conservation program. 
Again there can be an opinion difference between the meanings of " more " and "much more". 
  But among all the options only option E seems to come closest to the main point of the argument.

There is no correct option which precisely states the main point of the argument     but Option E seems to be the closest answer available among the given.

BukrsGmat · Answer

IMO E.

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natural resources but one resource has been ignored for too long. In the United States, each bushel of corn produced might result in the loss of as much as two bushels of topsoil. Moreover, in the last 100 years, the topsoil in many states, which once was about fourteen inches thick, has been eroded to only six or eight inches. Nonetheless, federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have remained at ridiculously low levels.  Total federal expenditures for nationwide soil conservation programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states. 
 If i am correct eherewe are comparing expense by federal for the whole country < expense by some states for the same cause  
Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument?

(A) Corn is not a cost-effective product and substitutes should be found where possible.
 wrong-Outside knowledge ignore 
(B) A layer of topsoil only six to eight inches thick cannot support the continued cultivation of corn.
 Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore 
(C) Soil conservation is a responsibility of the federal government, not the states.
 Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore 
(D) The federal government's expenditures for soil conservation in the various states have been inequitable.
 Wrong-Outside knowledge ignore, we don't know if it is allocating same or diff amounts for states  
 E) The federal government should spend much more on soil conservation than it has been spending.
  Correct- seems to be the best ans

ConnectTheDots · Answer

A, B, C are out as explained by others here. 
B/w D and E, I would take E because - the discussion of State funding comes only to undermine the role of the federal govt.. Option D doesn't raise a slightest hint that soil conservation is underfunded and just says the funding is inequitable. What do we get from inequitable funding ? we just get to know that the fed. is partial. Is that the main point ? If Yes, then why the author goes on explaining about how many inches of top soil has been consumed and why.

The main point is Fed. Govt. has ignored soil conservation and allocates insufficient funding. E is closest.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

The United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur

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 United States government generally tries to protect valuable natur

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