Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production

Question

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture. Thus, if we choose to sustain economic growth, which requires increasing agricultural production, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the agricultural economist’s reasoning?

(A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiversity.

(B) Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiversity.

(C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase.

(D) Preserving biodiversity is no more important than increasing agricultural production.

(E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Premise:

We can increase production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture. 
(So if we want to increase production without reducing biodiversity, we must abandon conventional practices)

Economic growth requires increasing agricultural production.

Conclusion:
If we choose to sustain economic growth, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

We are told that economic growth needs increasing agricultural production. We are also told that increasing agricultural production needs abandoning conventional agriculture if we do not want to reduce biodiversity.
We are concluding that to sustain economic growth, we must modify agricultural practices (i.e. abandon conventional practices)

Our conclusion will make sense if we say that biodiversity must not be reduced. Else, we would not NEED to abandon conventional practices. We could reduce biodiversity as an alternative solution.

That is what option (B) says. Take it along with the premises and see if the conclusion makes sense.

Economic growth requires increasing agricultural production.
Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiversity.
We can increase production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture.

Conclusion:For economic growth, we must abandon conventional agriculture.

It makes sense now.

Look at the other options:

(A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiversity.

Increase in biodiversity is irrelevant.

(C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase.

When economic growth SHOULD be sustained is irrelevant. We are talking about what we need if we want to sustain it.

(D) Preserving biodiversity is no more important than increasing agricultural production.

It doesn't matter which is considered more important and which less. For example, we may not be willing to reduce biodiversity even if it is considered less important. We may want to look at alternative means. The argument talks about the alternative methods and what to do if you do not want to take one of the methods. Then you must take the other method. It seems there are two methods of achieving increased production - 'reducing biodiversity' and 'abandoning conventional agriculture'. If we don't want to reduce biodiversity, we must abandon conventional agriculture.

(E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.

"Extent to which we can increase agricultural production" is not relevant.

Answer (B)

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

One way to approach this is to build a diagram, but by bit. Here are some abbreviations:

Increased Ag Production = IAP
Biodiversity = B
Conventional Ag = CA
Sustain Economic Growth = SEG

The first claim can be dealt with as a multi-conditional, like this:

IAP

+ ➜ CA

B

The next claim makes SEG sufficient for IAP:

SEG ➜ IAP

The conclusion then links SEG to CA, but leaves out any connection to B:

SEG ➜ CA

To strengthen this link, I need to pull B back into the picture. To prove CA, I need both IAP AND B, but SEG only proves IAP. So, add in that SEG is sufficient for B, and we're there! Our prephrase, then, should be:

SEG ➜ B

(Sustained economic growth is sufficient for biodiversity, or put another way, don't grow the economy without also maintaining biodiversity)

The best match for us is  answer B.  That is the only answer that ties SEG to B, which is what we need in order to get all the way through the chain to getting away from conventional agriculture.

Answer: B

Explanation credit: PowerScore LSAT

Green2k1 · Answer

I got it wrong too because could not identify the conclusion. But after re-reading the argument, this is my understanding.

Recommendation: we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

Attachment:

Screenshot 2020-12-21 212650.png [ 58.06 KiB | Viewed 13432 times ]

As the argument is concluding, should radically modify agricultural techniques. Means recommending Plan B.
The statement is asking, which option most helps to justify economist’s reasoning

(A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiversity.
– Goals is to increase the production/sustain growth

(B) Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiversity.
- Justifying the economist reasoning

(C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase.
- Given to sustain economic growth requires increase in production

(D) Preserving biodiversity is no more important than increasing agricultural production. - Opposite

(E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.
- out of scope

Shadyshades · Answer

We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture.
 
 No Con. Agr. ----> Inc. Agr. Pro + Bio.

Thus, if we choose to sustain economic growth, which requires increasing agricultural production, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.

Inc. Agr. Pro + Mod. Agr. Tech -----> Sus. Eco. Grw.

Pre thinking- What happened to biodiversity in conclusion ? So we are looking an option that connects Biodiversity with Sus. Eco. Grw.

Option B is spot ON.   
 Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiversity

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.

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production

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

Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production

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