Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain cropsrice, wheat, and cornaccoun

Question

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain crops—rice, wheat, and corn—account for most human caloric intake. To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the farmer's argument depends?

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth.
 
B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops.
 
C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops.
 
D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide.
 
E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre.

(CR07712)

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Accepted Answer

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain crops—rice, wheat, and corn—account for most human caloric intake. To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the farmer's argument depends?

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth.

B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops.

C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops.

D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide.

E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre.

BID:  Need boost yield/acre -> Gov should fund research to boost yields
 Conclusion:  The government should increase funding into improved yields.
 Evidence:  Yields per acre will need to increase and the supply of land is diminishing.

The Big 3 GMAT Assumptions: 
  1. Success  -  The government funded research can be successful in boosting yields. 
 2. Relevance  - N/A
 3. No Other Factors  - N/A

The Goal:  We are asked for an assumption, so  we need to find the option that is essential for the argument to work.

Choice B is correct. This states that the increased funding will actually work to improve yields per acre.  The arguer’s reasoning depends on the notion that the government research is even capable of generating any sort of improvement.  What if it’s not? Then the whole proposal collapses. It wouldn’t work.

Choice A does not need to be assumed. The argument doesn’t hinge on the government being the ONLY party responsibility. The argument just hinges on the notion that the government is capable of actually doing something to help. The author might think that others are responsible, not just the government.

Choice C is an irrelevant comparison that is not required for the argument to hold. Remember, in an Assumption question, the argument would NEED that option to be true for the argument to stand. Whether corn, wheat, or rice is more important has no impact on the argument.

Choice D does not need to be assumed. For the argument to hold that the government should invest in research to boost yields to 1.5%/year we don’t need that to be the current rate, because the argument only deals with what the government is capable of doing in the future. What if anything it’s doing RIGHT NOW is completely unnecessary for the logic of this argument to hold.

Choice E does not need to be assumed. We know that assumption questions ask us to find the option the would have to be true for the argument to hold. In that light, this is the most absurd option of them all. The argument absolutely does not require the notion that rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of caloric intake unless the government research is funded. That piece of information is absolutely not required for the logic of the proposal to hold. It might be that these crops will remain as important as they now are even without government funding. This choice presents a possible OUTCOME, but not an assumption.

B

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: Assumption

Argument: Government should increase funding for research to improve yields.

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth. - Irrelevant. The argument isn't concerned about who shoulders the responsibility.

B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops. - Correct. Negate and the conclusion also gets negated.

C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops. - Out of context. Argument doesn't focus much on giving preference to rice, wheat and corn over the other crops.

D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide. - If anything, this option opposes the conclusion. Since there is already an increase by more than 1.5%, should the government provide the funding?

E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre. - Irrelevant. We are not worried about the future consequence, if no funding happens.

Answer: B

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: 3 grains account for most human caloric intake. Supply of cultivated land is decreasing. To maintain caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase by at least 1.5 percent every year. Conclusion: Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields. The argument says that to feed increasing population at current levels, increase in yield is required. So the Govt should increase funding for research to improve yields. What is an assumption here? A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth. The argument does not assume that ONLY the govt is responsible. It recommends the Govt to invest but that doesn't mean that ONLY the Govt should invest. B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops. Correct. The argument assumes that if the Govt increases funding for research, it will help achieve the goal. Note that it does not assume that it WILL achieve the goal, just that it will HELP achieve the goal. That is, it is certainly assuming that the Govt's funding will be helpful. That is the reason it recommends the Govt to increase funding. C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops. Other crops are out of scope. D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide. Not assumed. The argument is forward looking only. We don't know what has happened in recent times. E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre. Not assumed. The argument does not say that it is necessary for the Govt to increase research spending. Also, what impact will the inability to increase yields have on human diet, we don't know. The 3 grains may take a smaller share but still remain a major part or they may become a minor part or caloric intake may need to be reduced and the current levels of the 3 grains may be maintained or some other outcome. The argument only talks about what should be done (what will help) to maintain current levels. There is no assumption made regarding the outcome of the inability to increase yield by 1.5%. Answer (B) Some discussions on Assumptions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU A Hard Assumption Ques: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

Abhishek009 · Answer

With (B), as without it the conclusion gets shattered.

jayarora · Answer

Farmer's Argument: Yields from rice, wheat, and corn will have to increase to keep up with the population growth and human calorie intake. Therefore, the government should invest in research to improve yields.

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth. This one is quite close. If I negate this choice: 'It is solely NOT the govt's responsibility..' , then the conclusion could still hold true as the govt could be partly responsible. (If the choice said 'It is the government's responsibility to ensure...' then it would have been an assumption) 
 
B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops. The argument talks about human calorie intake whereas farmer talks about increasing yields of this crops. This choice fills the gap that the investment will actually help increase the food production(and not just the yield of these crops) 
 
C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops. Comparison with other crops is Irrelevant 
 
D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide. We don't NEED thiis to be true.  
 
E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre. Again, we don't need this for the conclusion to be true.

abhimehrotra · Answer

https://gmatclub.com/forum/members/member-71830.html
GMATNinja

Can you give your 2 cents on this question.

I have the following query:

Option A: It says that it is the govt's responsibility that production keeps up pace with population growth. In the argument, it is concluded that govt should increase the funding for research to improve the yields.
When option A is negated- It is not govt's responsibility that production keeps up pace with population growth, we will not have logical reasons to conclude that govt should fund more for research. I understand that main crux of argument is to increase the funding for better yield, but the argument itself abruptly brings the govt. funding into the picture.

Option B- It says that increase in funding will result in worldwide "annual production of food". This could have happened because of better yield, better storage facilities (less grains ruined), better supply chain, etc. Infact, even if the yield remains same, the increased production of "food" would be possible. When Option B is negated- The increase in funding does not lead to increased annual production of "food", we still have logical basis to conclude that govt funding would improves yields (supply chain/storage facilities etc.). Hence this option can be rejected.

Can you help me understand the flaws in my approach?

Thanks!

vv65 · Answer

You missed a word. Option A says "It is  SOLELY  the government's responsibility ..."
The negation will be "It is not SOLELY the government's responsibility" - and that does not negate the conclusion

"It is not solely the govt's responsibility" just means that others share the responsibility (along with the government). This does not weaken the conclusion in any way

Hope this helps

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB  Ma'am, 
In option E, 
Unless there is Govt. funded research to increase their yields per acres, all the three grain crops would become a minor part of human caloric intake in the coming decade. 
If this is the case, doesn't this mean that Govt. should increase spending to increase their yields per acre and to avoid them from becoming a minor part. 
Please evaluate where am I going wrong. 
and what will be the negation of this answer choice?

Please share your two cents.

KarishmaB · Answer

Recall that unless = if not

If there is no Govt funded research, all three crops will become minor part of diet. (simplified sentence)
Negation: If there is no Govt funded research, all three crops will not become minor part of diet.
(We negate the main clause)

Does this break our argument? No. The argument does not say that without Govt funded research the three crops will become minor part of diet. The argument only says that the three crops are major part (so people demand it) so we will need to increase their yield to maintain current consumption so the govt should invest in it. If govt doesn't invest in it, will the three crops become a minor part or diet? Not necessary. They may stay a major part but people may need to eat less. We may not be able to maintain current consumption. We don't know what will happen if yields are not increased. But if we want to maintain current consumptions, we need to increase yield and govt funded research will help in that case.

S1ny1s · Answer

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain crops—rice, wheat, and corn—account for most human caloric intake. To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields.

premise: The land that we cultivate grain crops( rice, wheat, and corn) will have to increase to maintain level of caloric intake and pace with global population because the cultivated land is diminishing.

Conclusion: The government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve produce these grain crops. it is a sort of recommendation given by author. and he is assuming that this is best way to achieve this plan. lets see options choice

Which of the following is an assumption on which the farmer's argument depends?

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth.
 We aren't concerned about what is the only responsibility of government . it also uses a extreme language{all,any,no, only, every,never, alwyas} be careful 
 when you see the extreme language used in the options choice.

B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops.
 this is what exactly we are assuming. let's negate it.
 Increasing government funding for research into new way to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn corps  would NOT  help 
 to increase the world wide annual production of food from these crops. if the increasing funding for research would not help to increase the world production of
 food , then what is value of increasing government funding for research, as to author, so it completely destroys the author conclusion. that's why Author must 
 assume prepositions to reach to the conclusion.
 
C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops.
 there is no discussion about to other crops, so c is out.

D.  Current levels of funding for research  into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to 
 increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide.
 does the author is talking about the specific type of research in the passage no, that's why (d) is out.

E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre.
 let's discuss this options choice it's confusing 
 if there isn't government-funded research to increase their yields per acre, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, In coming 
   decades .

author is discussing here every year not a decade, we don't what could happen in the future,? other reason
   lets negate this options choice , 
 if there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre, rice, wheat and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, in coming ten 
 year. does it weaken the author's conclusion? no way.
 what rice, wheat and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, in coming ten year? is the author is really assuming that if government-funded 
 research to increase their yields to get the result in ten year. no? why , but the passage stated that every year land will have to increase 1.5 percent to maintain 
 demand of people of the world.

NEYR0N · Answer

a - Even if industry, NGOs or foreign donors could also fund research, the conclusion “the  government should increase funding ” can still stand.
b - Negate it (“extra money would  not  help”) → funding boost becomes pointless → conclusion collapses. yes
c - The argument only needs the three grains to keep up with demand; their relative “importance” vs. other crops is irrelevant.
d - If yields are  already  rising fast enough, there’s no need for extra money, so this would weaken the argument.
e - Even if the grains stay dominant without extra research, the farmer can still argue that higher yields are needed

aperiamdolorum · Answer

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain crops—rice, wheat, and corn—account for most human caloric intake. To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the farmer’s argument depends?

A. It is solely the government's responsibility to ensure that the amount of rice, wheat, and corn produced worldwide keeps pace with global population growth.
→ "solely" is a very strong assumption here; not mentioned anywhere

B. Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops.
→ YES, definitely.

C. Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops.
→ Again, "more important" is an assumption not mentioned at all in the text

D. Current levels of funding for research into ways of improving grain crop yields per acre have enabled grain crop yields per acre to increase by more than 1.5 percent per year worldwide.
→ Irrelevant.

E. In coming decades, rice, wheat, and corn will become a minor part of human caloric intake, unless there is government-funded research to increase their yields per acre.
→ Can't really know, but "unless there is gvt funded research" is a bit too extreme.

alamin8 · Answer

I really appreciate the way you map the answer choices. Would you mind map the pre-thinking for conclusion and evidence. While I do believe that conclusion is the part, where the sentence was started with a therefore.

Best of luck

Best of luck

egmat · Answer

Hi alamin8,

You're right that the sentence starting with  "Therefore"  is the conclusion here, so your instinct landed on the correct spot. Let me map the full pre-thinking for you.

The structure

Conclusion (the recommendation):  "...the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields."

Evidence (why the farmer says so): 
- Rice, wheat, and corn account for most human caloric intake.
- The supply of cultivated land is diminishing.
- So to maintain caloric intake  and  keep pace with population growth, yields per acre must rise  at least 1.5% every year .

So the logic runs:  we need higher yields -  therefore  the government should fund research to get them.

One thing to fix in how you spot conclusions

Be careful about relying  only  on the word "therefore." It's a great signal, but it isn't the definition of a conclusion. The real test is:  which statement is the main point that everything else is offered to support?  Ask  "Why does the author say this?"  - the piece that the other sentences are backing up is the conclusion; the pieces doing the backing are the evidence.

Here, "therefore" happens to mark it - but on harder questions the conclusion can sit in the middle, or have no signal word at all.

Quick habit to build  - try finding the conclusion in each of these without leaning on a keyword:
-  "Yields must rise. The government should fund research."  (no "therefore" - which is the main point?)
-  "The government should fund research, since yields must rise."  ("since" flags the evidence, not the conclusion.)

In both, the recommendation is still the conclusion. Once you frame it as  support vs. main point , the assumption gap becomes clear: the plan (fund research) only works if that funding would actually  help  raise yields/production - which is exactly why  B  is the required assumption.

Answer: B

dhairya18 · Answer

🎯 CONCLUSION: The government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve grain yields.

🔗 LINE OF REASONING:
📌 Premise: Global population is growing, farmland is shrinking, and 3 main grains supply most calories.
📌 Requirement: Yields per acre must rise at least 1.5% annually.
🎯 Recommendation: Government must increase research funding for yield improvement.

⚠️ STRUCTURAL FLAW / REASONING GAP:
Means-to-an-End / Effectiveness Flaw. The author proposes a specific government action (funding research) as a solution to a problem, assuming without proof that taking this action will actually help achieve the required result (higher total food production).

💡 PURE DEDUCTIVE PRE-PHASE:
The proposed increase in government research funding must actually be capable of helping to increase total crop yields/production.

🔍 OPTION ANALYSIS:
❌ (A) Extreme language trap ("solely"). Government does not need exclusive responsibility over global agriculture to justify funding research.
✅ (B) Correct. This directly matches our deductive pre-phase by establishing that the proposed research funding will actually help boost overall crop production. (Negation: If increasing research funding WOULD NOT help increase total crop production, the proposed policy fails to solve the problem, shattering the conclusion).
❌ (C) Irrelevant comparison. Ranking the relative importance of these grains against other non-essential crops is not required to justify the recommendation.
❌ (D) Opposite effect trap. If current funding already yields >1.5% growth annually, an increase in funding would not be necessary.
❌ (E) Extreme diet-shift trap. The core issue is total caloric volume for a growing population, not preventing grains from becoming a minor dietary component.

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain cropsrice, wheat, and cornaccoun

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

Farmer: Worldwide, just three grain cropsrice, wheat, and cornaccoun

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