Alfredo: The United States could make significant progress toward beco

Question

Alfredo: The United States could make significant progress toward becoming independent of petroleum-derived gasoline as a source of energy by diverting a large proportion of corn grown in the US to the production of ethanol for fuel. Brazil is virtually independent of petroleum as a source of fuel because that country has been very successful in ethanol production.

Mavis: Ethanol derived from corn will never be a viable substitute for petroleum-derived gasoline in the US. While it is true that Brazil has been very successful in replacing gasoline with ethanol, the US cannot expect the same degree of success with corn-derived ethanol. Brazil’s ethanol is derived from sugarcane, which is very easy to convert to ethanol and, in Brazil, very easy to cultivate. Corn, on the other hand, is difficult to grow, requiring intensive cultivation. Also, the amount of fuel energy that can be garnered from land is only 0.05 watts per square meter for corn ethanol.

Select Mavis for the statement that, if true, most supports Mavis’s reasoning, and select Alfredo for the statement that, if true, most supports Alfredo’s reasoning. Make only two selections, one in each column.

FrozenDragon · Answer

Answer Explanation (Official):

Infer

Alfredo recommends diverting much of the corn grown in the US to produce ethanol for fuel, to make the US less dependent on petroleum-derived gasoline. To support this recommendation, he draws an analogy between the US and Brazil. He says that Brazil is already virtually independent of petroleum as a fuel source because it produces a lot of ethanol. He then implies that the US could follow Brazil’s lead with equal success.

Mavis critiques Alfredo’s reasoning by pointing out that Brazil’s ethanol is derived from sugarcane, which is easier to grow than the corn grown in the US, and corn yields little ethanol fuel energy relative to the amount of land needed.
Mavis could further support her argument by asserting that the US has nearly reached its maximum yield per acre of corn, because difficulty in increasing corn yields per acre would make it even harder to use ethanol derived from corn as a viable substitute for petroleum-derived gasoline in the US. If true, that would strengthen Mavis’s argument and weaken Alfredo’s.

Note that the claim that the US can’t grow enough sugarcane to significantly diminish petroleum consumption would not greatly strengthen Mavis’s counterargument against Alfredo. That’s because both Mavis’s and Alfredo’s arguments are specifically about how feasible it would be for the US to produce more ethanol from corn, not from sugarcane.
One way Alfredo could counter Mavis’s argument would be to claim that the process used to make ethanol from corn will yield more fuel energy relative to the amount of inputs if it is done on a larger scale. If true, that claim suggests that the US could more closely match Brazil’s efficiency in producing ethanol simply by producing much more ethanol, as Alfredo recommends. That would strengthen Alfredo’s argument and weaken Mavis’s.

First column:
  The correct answer is The US has nearly reached its maximum yield per acre of corn.

Second column:
  The correct answer is The industrial process used to make ethanol from corn will yield greater energy outputs if done on a larger scale.

MartyMurray · Answer

Notice the mix-up trap.

In the prompt, Alfredo speaks first, while in the answer table, Mavis's column is first.

There are little pitfalls like that one all through the GMAT, designed to test our level of attention to detail.

Legallyblond · Answer

but i still dont get it why is the answer not E for mavis? and how to tackle such problems? should we always stick to that problem which is the point of disagreement? and ignore the sugarcane kinda thing which is used as a support? i mean i am really confused here MartyMurray GMATNinja please help

HarishChaitanya · Answer

+++ pl help

FrozenDragon · Answer

Mavis's Main Point/Conclusion:  Mavis is saying one thing:  Corn  will never work as a fuel replacement in the US. We need an answer that proves corn is a bad choice.

Why Option B is Right:  Mavis complains that corn doesn't give us much energy per square meter of land. If the US is  already  growing the maximum amount of corn possible on its land, then this low-energy problem can never be fixed. This proves Mavis is right: corn will never be enough.

Why Option E is Wrong:  Option E is about  sugarcane . Mavis is only arguing about  corn . Because she is only talking about why corn will fail, the US's ability to grow sugarcane just doesn't matter for her argument.

officiisnobis · Answer

Fell into the trap but the answer is B Mavis and D for Alfredo

Mavis	Alfredo
		Brazil has nearly reached its ethanol-producing capacity.
		The US has nearly reached its maximum yield per acre of corn.
		The price of petroleum-derived gasoline has risen steadily over the past eight years.
		The industrial process used to make ethanol from corn will yield greater energy outputs to inputs if done on a larger scale.
		Sugarcane cannot be grown in sufficient quantities in the US for sugar-derived ethanol to significantly diminish petroleum consumption in the US.

Alfredo: The United States could make significant progress toward beco

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 Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Alfredo: The United States could make significant progress toward beco

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