Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It

Question

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.

Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?

I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III

Technext · Accepted Answer

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.

Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?

Explanation :
----------------------
 I . Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices. ---> Correct. This option just looks like a restatement of the premise (the only difference is that they have added numbers instead of words).

II . According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4. ---> Clearly provides support for author's claim. Benefit ($1) provided to the farmers is not going to come from money plant; it will come from the taxpayers. Also, increase in production cost will be reflected in increased food prices, which will affect consumers.

III . The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000. ---> Irrelevant. How does it show that the farm policy is penalizing consumers and taxpayers?

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III
----------------------

Clearly, option  D .

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Technext

boeinz · Answer

I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
 > Extracted: "It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year." 
 > Indeed billions of dollars are committed.

II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
 > Extracted: "Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers." 
 > Indeed, this policy is lousy because costs associated with the implementation far exceeds the benefits, hence consumers are penalized in a way.

silasaaa2 · Answer

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.
Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?

I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.  affects consumer since food prices increases due to farm subsidies 
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.
 benefits given to farmers affects taxpayers  
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.  networth of farmers doesn't affect tax payers and consumers so irrelavant

only option I and II support authors claim

so my choice is D

almostfamous · Answer

Clearly, D is the right answer.

Some people have asked why II results in "millions of dollars".

On the GMAT CR, it helps if you really focus on the main scheme or idea.

This question is actually simple, because the central theme of the question stem (i.e. central assumption of the question stem) is just one:

"Government policy of financial aids to the farmers hurts the consumers financially."

So, if "for each dollar the farmers receive, the consumers need to pay 4 dollars", it is REASONABLE to infer that these 4 dollars accumulate into millions of the taxes these consumers need to pay to assist the farmers.

The reasonability of inference depends on the context. It's similar in everyday conversations. Let's assume that we are talking about the VAT in say, France (VAT = 15%). Then, if I say that "for every euro I spend, the government gets 15 cents.", it is totally reasonable to infer that the French government gets not only my 15 cents but also millions (if not billions) Euro from VAT, others pay.

Hope this helps to clarify the question some of you had.

ForzaJuve · Answer

My attempt at explaining D:

- Identify the type of question:  Strengthen 
- Most, if not all Strengthen questions require the test taker to strengthen the  Conclusion 
- Identify the Conclusion: " Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. "
- Therefore, any answer choice that lends support to this conclusion is a  Strengthener

I. This is the easiest answer choice - clearly consumers are penalized by higher food prices. This answer provides cold, hard numbers (i.e., $12 bn).  YES

II. This is the trickiest answer choice - the test maker tries to throw you off by shifting your focus away from the conclusion and onto the premise. This is why for CR questions, identifying and separating the conclusion and premise (in addition to subsidiary conclusion and counter-premise) is so important. The trick is to not fall into the trap of trying to strengthen the premise (i.e., the second sentence of the stimulus). At the end of the day, you are trying to prove the conclusion that    farm policy hurts consumers . Regardless of whether this answer choice pertains to food prices, this answer choice gives readers more reason to believe the conclusion.  YES

III. Also pretty easy to get rid of this answer - a farmer's net worth has nothing to do with whether farm policy penalizes consumers. The focus of the conclusion is on consumers, not farmers.  NO

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It increases food prices for middle- and low-income families and costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year.

Which of the following statements, if true, would provide support for the author’s claims above?
*Current farm policy increases food costs for middle and low income families and penalizes taxpayers.
I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices. *Supports food increase claim
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.*Supports penalization of taxpayers (Ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers)
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000. *Their net worth doesn't affect consumers or taxpayers.

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
 (D)  I and II only
(E) I, II, and III

mvictor · Answer

I highly doubt that this is a valid gmat CR question.
Moreover, it is very ambiguous, as the fact that something can lead to smth else does not mean that it really is. What if the farmers are not given anything to process their crops into ethanol?
What if by processing the ethanol, the price per gallon of gas decreases by 5$? This clearly does not affect much the taxpayers who have cars.

nandeta · Answer

Conclusion :  Farm policy = Penalized for consumer
  Argument :   Inc. Food prices for families & costs taxpayer billions of dollars
  Strengthen:   To provide the statistics for the above argument.

I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.
II. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, each $1 of benefits provided to farmers for ethanol production costs consumers and taxpayers $4.  
III. The average full-time farmers have an average net worth of over $300,000.

(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I, II, and III

Qazi700 · Answer

I do not understand the underlying assumption here. It is not explicit in the first option that the subsidies are being financed by tax. Government can also use sovereign bonds to finance the capital. All I want to bring out is that the whole point of CR is to judge on the basis of provided information and to forget the previous knowledge of subject. Hence, I don't think first option stands. Please correct me.

Vannybhardwaj · Answer

but still in the in the second statement if there was no ethanol subside

Agarwal2003 · Answer

please explain the meaning of statement 1

agrasan · Answer

I. Farm subsidies amount to roughly $20 billion a year in federal payouts and $12 billion more in higher food prices.

Statement-I is also correct because of the word  "more"  which shows that farm subsidies have indeed led to higher expenses  ($12B more)  for people.

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It

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

Current farm policy is institutionalized penalization of consumers. It

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