Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle ranching require

Question

Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle ranching requires, and ostriches reproduce much faster than cattle. Starting out in cattle ranching requires a large herd of cows, one bull, and at least two acres per cow. By contrast, two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of similar land are enough to begin ostrich farming. The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater, but it can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

.(A)  Two pairs of yearling ostriches are more expensive than a herd of cows and a bull.

.(B)  Cattle ranching is not a good source of income.

.(C)  A cow consumes no more feed than an ostrich does.

.(D)  The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch.

.(E)  Ostrich farmers typically lose money during their first year.

Source : LSAT

Heisenberg12 · Accepted Answer

Inference question.

We must choose the option that’s absolutely coherent with the argument provided.

From all the facts given, the following could be inferred.

As per the argument, the start-up costs of ostrich farming are higher than those of cattle ranching.

What needs to be bought to start-up both?

Ostrich farming: 2 pairs of ostriches and 1 acre land.

Cattle ranching: a herd of cows, one bull and 2 acre land per cow.

If we compare the costs above, the land costs are common in both — it’s clear that the land required for cattle ranching is more than that required for ostrich farming. This, land costs for cattle ranching are higher than those for ostrich farming. 
Even then, the start up costs for ostrich farming are higher. This shows that the cost of 2 pairs of ostriches must definitely be higher than the cost of a herd of cows and a bull.

Option A says just that.

Posted from my mobile device

manasveek · Answer

vineethk929 ,  aghosh54

Hey,

This is an inference question. we need to choose option strongly supported by passage.
It's the answer that gets the most support, compared to the other answers, even if it isn't absolutely proven by the facts in the stimulus.

in A) vs D)

(A) Two pairs of yearling ostriches are more expensive than a herd of cows and a bull.

.(D) The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch.

We know A is not directly supported, but it can be inferred from these 2 lines from passage

"By contrast, two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of similar land are enough to begin ostrich farming. The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater"(while reading passage I wondered why its greater)

So cost of ostrich must be higher. So keep option A.

while others are easy to eliminate. D is sure an candidate.

but D shows classical mistake of generalisation. Passage says "it can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does."

The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch. 
we can't say this to every average ostrich farm.
what is true generally is may not be true for any average farm.
so D fails.

Explanation from another forum:

answer choice (D): the stimulus indicates that ostrich farms "can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does," but it does not say that every, or even most, ostrich farms do so. That's a problem, because answer choice (D) says: "The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch." But we don't know that the average ostrich farm does this; we only know that some ostrich farms can do this. Think of it this way: let's say there are 10 ostrich farms at 10 cattle raches, and the ostrich farms can generate 5 times more profit. Each cattle ranch generates $1, which means that each ostrich farm can generate up to $5. But they don't all have to...so lets say that 1 ostrich farm brings in $5, but the others all bring in $1. Does the average ostrich farm now bring in 5 times the average cattle ranch? It doesn't...the average ostrich farm brings in $1.4, while the average cattle ranch brings in $1. Not a difference of a multiple of five. In other words,just because an ostrich farm can bring in up to 5 times as much as a cattle ranch doesn't mean it will...and that is the issue with answer choice (D).

Hope it helps!

aghosh54 · Answer

Nowhere it is mentioned that 2 ostriches cost more than a herd of cow and a bull. Passage mentions that it cost more to set up a ostrich firm that to set up a cattle ranch. May be other things in the ostrich firm escalate the cost. So I think we can't say that A is true.

IMO D

Sent from my Redmi 4 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

vineethk929 · Answer

Yes nowhere ..there is discussion about the costs of animals...i agree with D.

Sent from my SM-J700F using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Heisenberg12 · Answer

The question asks about what can be inferred from the passage. 
It would be too far-fetched to assume that "other" things might raise start-up costs. From what's mentioned in the passage, if the start-up costs of Ostrich farming are more than those of cattle ranching but land required for cattle ranching is more than that required for Ostrich farming, the only plausible inference is that Ostriches cost more than cattle.

Why Option D is wrong?
The argument mentions that Ostrich farm brings as much as five times the cattle ranch does. What does the author talk about - 5 times profits or 5 times revenue? Thus, D can't be inferred from the argument.

ApocalyptoRishi · Answer

The land cost is not accounted for while choosing A as an answer. What is wrong with E?

Posted from my mobile device

Heisenberg12 · Answer

Option E may be true but it's not necessarily true. And we are looking at the answer choice that is necessarily true.

Now we know that the start-up costs of Ostrich Farming are high. And farmers may lose some money. But can we be entirely sure that the farmer will lose money in the first year?

It may be possible that the farmer spent $10,000 on starting up an Ostrich farm. He may earn less than $10,000 in the first year or more than that; we can't say that from the passage.

GMAT215 · Answer

In this question we are supposed to find out an answer choice which was be inferred from the information para of question.

That is why it is not supposed to be mentioned in the information para.

CluelessLearner · Answer

The land cost can vary with the type of land required for different animals. Maybe the land required for Ostriches is cheaper than what is required for cattle and a higher cost is required for Ostrich food and care of the Ostriches.

"but it can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does" 
This seems to imply that it can bring less than times or more than times. We can't be sure but this seems closer to the 'D' option than the 'A' option is to the other information.

nuevamateo20 · Answer

I narrowed down answers to choices A and D and evetually went with A, which is more strongly supported by the given stimulus. For D - I saw two "could be true" issues - 1. The original passage says "eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does". The author did not specify if this commment pertains to a comparison of revenue or profit. As we remember profit = rev less costs, we cannot infer this as a "must be true" statement; 2. the author did not specify how "average ostritch" or "average cattle" farms are operated, so again we cannot infer this statement as a "must be true" statement.

I think all prior posts have brought up these points, but still wanted to share my thoughts.

Thanks for posting everyone!

I think all prior posts have brought up these points, but still wanted to share my thoughts.

Thanks for posting everyone!

Saasingh · Answer

GMATNinja   nightblade354

Hello, could you please help me in understanding option A.

My reason for rejecting A was :
Ostrich require less acreage than cattle. But what if that less acreage costs 10-20 times more than acreage for the cattle? With this we could conclude that it is not the fact the ostrich are more expensive than bulls and herd of cows, but rather ostrich acreage is the cause of that high cost.

If this is true, option A can't be true. Thus I rejected A as it could be true not must be true.

Is this something to do with "initial costs"? Because if acreage costs were high for ostrich, they would always be high and not just as an initial investment?

Please correct my reasoning ? What am I missing ?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Best Regards,
Saakhi

svasan05 · Answer

Let us examine the various answer options:

.(A) Two pairs of yearling ostriches are more expensive than a herd of cows and a bull.  The passage clearly states that, " The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater", along with, "two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of similar land are enough to begin ostrich farming" and "Starting out in cattle ranching requires a large herd of cows, one bull...". Correct answer.

.(B) Cattle ranching is not a good source of income.  This is not implied anywhere in the passage. Eliminate.

.(C) A cow consumes no more feed than an ostrich does.  There is nothing about comparative feeds for cows and ostriches in the passage. Eliminate.

.(D) The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch.  The passage does state, "but it (ostrich farming) can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does". However, there are two issues. Firstly, we do not know by "bring in", whether the passage refers to income/revenue or profits. Even if we assume it means profits, the passage gives the ceiling/maximum for an ostrich farm vis-a-vis a cattle farm ( can  eventually bring in  as much as ...), whereas this option talks about the  average . Hence this cannot be supported by the passage. Eliminate.

.(E) Ostrich farmers typically lose money during their first year.  This is not implied anywhere in the passage. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

svasan05 · Answer

Hi Saakhi

Let me try to address your query.

The stimulus clearly states: "By contrast, two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of  similar  land are enough to begin ostrich farming."

Based on the above, it would not be appropriate to consider the scenario where "less acreage costs 10-20 times more than acreage for the cattle". We must consider the scenario where the cost for the land is similar for both ostrich and cattle farming (subject, of course, to the condition that more land will cost more).

Hope this clarifies.

Sapnilbhatnagar · Answer

Hi Guys, I'll help you in Choosing A from D since, the real fight is B/W A & D.
Pay attention to the Argument above it says " Ostrich Farm *CAN* bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does. 
So, It does not concretely says that it brings 5 times more, Rather, it can bring 5 times more. 
The Option says that it generates almost 5 times as much as which is concrete and is not dipsy dicey as in our Argument and hence Answer is A.

deeppan · Answer

Dear Srinivasan,

Thanks a lot for your response, I have below concern, Passage states "a large heard of Cow" while option states "a heard of Cow" isn't there a difference in both??

Saasingh · Answer

Hello,

Yes, I agree with your explanation. Thanks.
My bad I thought acreage means fodder or food LOL. Hence I couldn't see that connection between "similar land".

Cleared my doubt.
Also my understanding is that D is wrong because it talks about profits whereas passage talks about revenue. Am I correct?

Regards,
Saakhi

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

The passage clearly states
(i) The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater
(ii) ...two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of similar land are enough to begin ostrich farming
(iii) Starting out in cattle ranching requires a large herd of cows, one bull and at least two acres per cow

Now, land required for ostrich farming is less than land required for cattle farming. Yet, startup costs for ostrich farming are given to be higher. The only conclusion is that the cost of ostriches must be greater than that for cows and one bull required to start cattle farming.

Even if we assume "herd" to represent a smaller number of cows than "large herd", we can infer from the passage that costs for ostriches is greater than the cost of "a large herd of cows (and) one bull". It automatically follows from here that cost of ostriches must be higher than a smaller "herd of cows and a bull". Option (A) is hence the correct answer.

Hope this clarifies.

sankalp1811 · Answer

D cannot be right as it talks about the "profit"

Whereas in the stimulus it is mentioned that Ostrich farming brings in 5 times more than the cattle farming, which means revenue. Businesses are usually compared on the size of revenues.

Now,

Revenue - Cost = Profit

We can really say for sure if profit also follows the same relation of being 5 times higher for the OF wrt CF.

Agarwal2003 · Answer

How is the land cost the same in both cases? The amount of land differs.

Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle ranching require

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

Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle ranching require

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