The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

Question

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

PTK · Accepted Answer

Hi

Welcome to the Club! Look you have to dismantle this argument to premises and conclusion: Premises: - before meat and grain were enough - per capita income will rise. - as a result growing prosperity in Baurisia per capita consumption of meat will increase - and by the way: (it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat) Conclusion: - they will import grain. Now you must think about it in this way: if import grain -> feed animals-> kill them->make meat-> meat to Baurisians if import meat -> meat to Baurisians In second chain you eliminate the the unnecessary chain "feed animals-> kill them->make meat->" wich is less economical way of producing meat. Now, just take off the detail in blue, you will see that grain is irrrelevant here. The argument will look like "they had enough meat, but soon because their income increases they will need more meat" So why to buy grain if they need meat indeed?

Abdul29 · Answer

To clarify why B is not correct:

(B) "The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels."

As you can see, this answer choice just gives you a break-down of the consumption accross income levels; which serves as a classic shell-answer. In the question itself, it is clearly stated that " with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat ", so even if the consumption is the same accross all levels, in total, it is increasing.

Thus, B does not directly attack the conclusion of the arguement, which is the act of importing grain.

mejia401 · Answer

Conclusion: Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Reasoning:   The correct answer weakens the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain. The incorrect answer supports or is neutral to the conclusion that Baurisia will be an importer of grain.

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.  Wrong - if meat and grain is consumed more, then grain imports are likely. Thus, the conclusion is supported.

B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.  Wrong - Neutral. Even if consumption of meat is the same, the statement neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.

C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.  Wrong - Out of scope. The conclusion depends upon whether or not Baurisia is importing grain.

D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.   Correct - If it is more economical to import meat than grain, then Baurisia is more likely to import meat than to import grain. Thus, the conclusion is weakened.

E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.  Wrong - Neutral. Even if the country's population has remained relatively stable, the country is not more or less likely to import grain.

IMO D

sun01 · Answer

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. ---------  This line denotes a fact or premise.    However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, an it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.  ---  /** This denotes the basis of the argument/**    Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, -----  /**This denotes the fact/**    Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain .-   This is the conclusion of the argument.  
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weaken the argument?

A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
C) Percapita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

The concept says that you can't deny the premise/fact/evidence, but you can deny the reasoning. the reasoning here is more grain will be required to produce meat. One more fact in the argument is increases in domestic grain production is unlikely.

Let's say that in place of option D,   it would have been that a viral crop disease has crippled the main country where the Baurisia is likely to import the grain from.  
.
  Which one would be correct then?

Any expert. help me to get deep into this.

techiesam · Answer

I'm little bit confused about option C.to weaken the argument we need to find two alternate way.One way is to import meat or another way is to produce more grain.Now both C and D are talking about importing meat but C is a little bit masked and D is direct.So why C is not the right choice??

sayantanc2k · Answer

The argument indicates that the requirement of meat in Baurisia is going to increase (premise 1), and therefore the requirement of grain is also going to increase (conclusion), because one pound of meat production requires several pounds of grain (premise 2). However the argument assumes that the only source of meat in Baurisia is grains; the argument overlooks the possibility that meat can be supplied by some other means, such as, by importing. Therefore a comparison between grain import and meat import would be a good choice for answering this question. Option D makes this comparison and thereby attacks the link between the premise 2 and conclusion.

Option C does not make it clear whether the price of meat would be low enough in those likely exporting countries so as to make meat import more economical than grain import. No Information is given about grains in this option. Moreover an additional assumption is required that higher consumption results in higher price. Option D is a more direct way and leaves no uncretainty about the advantage of meat import over grain import. Therefore option D is better than option C.

BillyZ · Answer

How to Attack a Causal Conclusion

Whenever you identify a causal relationship in the conclusion of a GMAT problem, immediately prepare to either weaken or strengthen the argument. Attacking a cause and effect relationship in Weaken questions almost always consists of performing one of the following tasks:

A. Find an alternate cause for the stated effect

Because the author believes there is only one cause, identifying another cause weakens the conclusion.

B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the cause always produces the effect, any scenario where the cause occurs and the effect does not weaken the conclusion.

C. Show that although the effect occurs, the cause did not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the effect is always produced by the same cause, any scenario where the effect occurs and the cause does not weaken the conclusion.

D. Show that the stated relationship is reversed

Because the author believes that the cause and effect relationship is correctly stated, showing that the relationship is backwards (the claimed effect is actually the cause of the claimed cause) undermines the conclusion.

E. Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement

If the data used to make a causal statement are in error, then the validity of the causal claim is in question.

Cause  :  Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat

Effect  :  Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain

B. Show that even when the cause occurs, the effect does not occur

This type of answer often appears in the form of a counterexample. Because the author believes that the cause always produces the effect, any scenario where the cause occurs and the effect does not weaken the conclusion.

Answer  : (D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

LakerFan24 · Answer

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

* QUICKLY IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.
> TASK: WEAKEN!

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.
- Opposite. If people increase their consumption of grain, this STRENGTHENS the conclusion!

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.
- Out of scope. Who cares how the consumption of meat is spread across the people of Baurisia?

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.
- Out of scope. Who cares about countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat?

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.
- Correct. This weakens the idea that Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain. Why would it import grain when demand for meat is going up and it is more economical for them to just import meat?

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.
- Out of scope. Who cares about the population growth? This doesn't address the import of grain.

Kudos please if you find this helpful

KarishmaB · Answer

Lots of grain is needed to make meat.
Per capita consumption of meat is increasing (we don't know whether everyone is eating a bit more or some people are eating a whole lot more)
Per capita income will continue to rise (so consumption of meat will continue to rise)
Grain production will not increase.

Conclusion: the country will start importing grain.

Weaken it. The country could directly import meat rather than grain. Option (D) works.

(A) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

Makes it more likely that grain will be imported.

(B) The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same accross all income levels.

Doesn't matter who is consuming meat. Prosperity is increasing so demand for meat will keep increasing. Everyone will eat more than before because of increased income. How the per capita consumption of meat compares across incomes doesn't matter. Say everyone eats meat once in a day. When they start earning more money, they might start consuming it twice because they feel richer. Everyone may have been able to "afford" two meat meals prior to increase also. The important factor is the increased income for average individual, not comparative incomes of people.

(C) Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

Irrelevant. Nothing says that Baurisia will not be able to import meat. These countries may have sufficient for their own increased consumption and to export.

(D) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

Correct.

(E) During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

We know demand for meat will rise. Stable population is irrelevant.

Answer (D)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

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 country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both

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