GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Nov 2019, 14:03

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2019, 21:18
5
27
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

27% (02:01) correct 73% (02:21) wrong based on 459 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.


CR97561.01
Most Helpful Expert Reply
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 808
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2019, 09:49
3
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

Unique set up; we are told that we have a fail-safe if we do not sell our grain on the open market, but that the government wants to limit our cultivation because we will abuse this. We want to protect ourselves. How? Well, the first thing that catches my eye is the last sentence in blue. If it is on an acreage basis, we should try to preserve or gain as much as we can. But this could go in a million directions, so let's see where it takes us.

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect. -- Opposite of what we want. If we start with 4 acres and move to 3, and we are told that it is a fixed % basis, let's say 50%, well we just went from 2 acres to 1.5 acres to cultivate. Do not assume that just because it is less profitable we can get rid of it. Further, don't assume that we will meet the quota. Maybe this is too much land to give up? Wrong.

B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price. -- OK, but who cares? Is this the open market or our board? And if it's our market, is the price more or less than what we currently receive? Do not assume that we are locking in our profits. We could be costing ourselves money by locking in lower rates compared to the free market. Out.

C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones. -- Who cares? Efficiency and profits are not the same thing. Maybe this new tractor bankrupts us; maybe this new tractor is efficient, but uses more fuel and costs more money. We don't know what "efficient" means in this case. Do not make assumptions to justify this answer choice. Out.

D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it. -- So if we have 4 plots cultivated, but we add 6 more, we get 10 total. And if we keep 50%, we get 5 acres instead of 2; this is perfect! We get to increase/keep our profits even with the quota.

E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production. -- Two reasons why this is wrong: 1. Is "other farmers" all of them or just a few? It could be 10, 100, or 1,000,000; we don't know our populace. If this said "all", it could be better but still not perfect. 2. Do the cutbacks allow for the prevention of the quota system? We don't know what triggers this, so we could bargain with everyone and still need to cut out production and we are in the same place as we were before. Out.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: Here

My RC Guide: Here

Need an expert to grade your AWA? Go: Here

Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how: Here
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 04:56
2
D amazing one. Took me more than 1 min to just grasp the information. Though answered it under two.

D is a clear winner and the answer lies in the last sentence.

The board is limiting the farmer to a certain percentage of already used land. So the farmer should try to maximize the land under cultivation in order to get maximum land after the rule becomes effective

Posted from my mobile device
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2431
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 08:46
1
gmatt1476 wrote:
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.

-As per current agricultural policies, a farmer can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a board at guaranteed prices
- In just a few years, the board will have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.
Plan of action for a farmer to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted-

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.- incorrect, taking less profitable grain fields makes no sense as it might lead to other issues
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.- incorrect, we do not how whether these long-term contracts will be valid once the new quota is imposed and we do not know how long these contracts will be
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.- Irrelevant
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it. - Correct
If the current production of our farmer is 100 tonnes of grain X. If, the marginal land is put under cultivation and the production increases to say 125 tonnes in the next year.
Now, we know that post the imposition of production quotas, each farmer will be limited to a certain percentage of grain acreage cultivated by the farmer previously. So, when the limit is imposed, it will a fixed percentage on then value(say 120 tonnes,which is higher than our initial value)

E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production. - incorrect, Firstly we don't know how many farmers are involved in this agreement.
This might be a better scenario for all farmers taken together, but for an individual farmer, this is not the best way. Also, some farmers agreeing on a voluntary cutback might only delay the inevitable.
If the current production of our farmer is 100 tonnes of grain X. Post the voluntary cutback, the grain production will be say 90 tonnes.
So, when the limit is imposed, it will a fixed percentage on then value(90 tonnes)

Answer D
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Mar 2018
Posts: 11
Location: India
GPA: 4
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 09:54
Are these new kind of questions? I did not came across such questions in OG.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2019, 02:49
2
gmatt1476 wrote:
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.


CR97561.01


Official Explanation

Plan Evaluation

Of the plans described in the five answer choices and equally available to the farmer, which one would be the most effective to pursue?

It is expected that the grain board of Country R, which purchases surplus grain production from farmers at guaranteed prices, will, within a few years, impose quotas on each farmer's grain production in order to limit overproduction.

This plan will limit each farmer to a flat percentage of the grain acreage previously cultivated. The quota will be calculated based on pre-existing grain acreage (presumably averaged over a few years). Therefore, it would make the most sense for the farmer to boost grain acreage for the next few years, even if some of the acreage increase involves using land not optimal for grain production.

A. Selecting less profitable land now would make sense if no other course of action did. However, it would still entail some immediate reduction in profits: the land in question is currently less profitable, not unprofitable.

B. Long-term fixed-price contracts would presumably ensure the farmer's profitability from grain cultivation. But that might not occur if the total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation were to significantly increase without the contracts safeguarding against such a case. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is that such long-term contracts could significantly limit the farmer's ability to profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain.

C. We are given no information to help us gauge how machinery obsolescence and major investment in new machinery might affect the profits from grain cultivation.

D. Correct. Since any quotas issued in a few years will be calculated as a percentage of the farmer's pre-existing grain-production acreage, the farmer would benefit from increasing his or her grain-production acreage even if some of the new acreage is suboptimal for grain cultivation.

E. To agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks might help forestall or at least delay the introduction of grain quotas by the grain board. However, it could have much the same effect as quotas even if it is sufficient to pre-empt mandatory quotas. Furthermore, it would carry the risk that some farmers would defect from any agreement if they perceived an advantage in doing so.

The correct answer is D.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Posts: 15
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Oct 2019, 23:27
gmatt1476 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.


CR97561.01


Official Explanation

Plan Evaluation

Of the plans described in the five answer choices and equally available to the farmer, which one would be the most effective to pursue?

It is expected that the grain board of Country R, which purchases surplus grain production from farmers at guaranteed prices, will, within a few years, impose quotas on each farmer's grain production in order to limit overproduction.

This plan will limit each farmer to a flat percentage of the grain acreage previously cultivated. The quota will be calculated based on pre-existing grain acreage (presumably averaged over a few years). Therefore, it would make the most sense for the farmer to boost grain acreage for the next few years, even if some of the acreage increase involves using land not optimal for grain production.

A. Selecting less profitable land now would make sense if no other course of action did. However, it would still entail some immediate reduction in profits: the land in question is currently less profitable, not unprofitable.

B. Long-term fixed-price contracts would presumably ensure the farmer's profitability from grain cultivation. But that might not occur if the total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation were to significantly increase without the contracts safeguarding against such a case. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is that such long-term contracts could significantly limit the farmer's ability to profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain.

C. We are given no information to help us gauge how machinery obsolescence and major investment in new machinery might affect the profits from grain cultivation.

D. Correct. Since any quotas issued in a few years will be calculated as a percentage of the farmer's pre-existing grain-production acreage, the farmer would benefit from increasing his or her grain-production acreage even if some of the new acreage is suboptimal for grain cultivation.

E. To agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks might help forestall or at least delay the introduction of grain quotas by the grain board. However, it could have much the same effect as quotas even if it is sufficient to pre-empt mandatory quotas. Furthermore, it would carry the risk that some farmers would defect from any agreement if they perceived an advantage in doing so.

The correct answer is D.


I am confused here. Doesn't the answer choice D say Put marginal land under cultivation
While Explanation says the farmer would benefit from increasing his or her grain-production acreage
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2018
Posts: 90
CAT Tests
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2019, 08:39
2
MRAJINKYA wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
gmatt1476 wrote:
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.


CR97561.01


Official Explanation

Plan Evaluation

Of the plans described in the five answer choices and equally available to the farmer, which one would be the most effective to pursue?

It is expected that the grain board of Country R, which purchases surplus grain production from farmers at guaranteed prices, will, within a few years, impose quotas on each farmer's grain production in order to limit overproduction.

This plan will limit each farmer to a flat percentage of the grain acreage previously cultivated. The quota will be calculated based on pre-existing grain acreage (presumably averaged over a few years). Therefore, it would make the most sense for the farmer to boost grain acreage for the next few years, even if some of the acreage increase involves using land not optimal for grain production.

A. Selecting less profitable land now would make sense if no other course of action did. However, it would still entail some immediate reduction in profits: the land in question is currently less profitable, not unprofitable.

B. Long-term fixed-price contracts would presumably ensure the farmer's profitability from grain cultivation. But that might not occur if the total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation were to significantly increase without the contracts safeguarding against such a case. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is that such long-term contracts could significantly limit the farmer's ability to profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain.

C. We are given no information to help us gauge how machinery obsolescence and major investment in new machinery might affect the profits from grain cultivation.

D. Correct. Since any quotas issued in a few years will be calculated as a percentage of the farmer's pre-existing grain-production acreage, the farmer would benefit from increasing his or her grain-production acreage even if some of the new acreage is suboptimal for grain cultivation.

E. To agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks might help forestall or at least delay the introduction of grain quotas by the grain board. However, it could have much the same effect as quotas even if it is sufficient to pre-empt mandatory quotas. Furthermore, it would carry the risk that some farmers would defect from any agreement if they perceived an advantage in doing so.

The correct answer is D.


I am confused here. Doesn't the answer choice D say Put marginal land under cultivation
While Explanation says the farmer would benefit from increasing his or her grain-production acreage
Aren't these two statements contradictory?

Hey MRAJINKYA,
Here the the word marginal means that apart from the cultivation that is happening on the main land, farmers should also use the margins/ edges of their fields.. in short less optimum than the main land but that doesn't matter since goal is quantity not quality.
Hope it helps.

Please give Kudos if it helped :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 310
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2019, 00:43
dear GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354
anyone can help understand the OE of following:
Quote:
Long-term fixed-price contracts would presumably ensure the farmer's profitability from grain cultivation. But that might not occur if the total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation were to significantly increase without the contracts safeguarding against such a case. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is that such long-term contracts could significantly limit the farmer's ability to profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain.


I did not get it.
thanks a lot
Manager
Manager
User avatar
P
Status: The darker the night, the nearer the dawn!
Joined: 16 Jun 2018
Posts: 182
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2019, 21:18
Conclusion:
    What step MUST be taken to LIMIT the impact on profits of the grain quota?

Pre-Think:
    The entire logic is based on the PAST acreage: a certain FLAT percentage of the grain acreage farmers cultivated PREVIOUSLY.

    What if, the farmers, in any way, CAN increase the acreage to compensate for the FLAT percentage cultivated PREVIOUSLY?
    Let's say:
      Initially, the acreage was 100 units.
      Now, to compensate for the impact on profits, the farmers decided to rig the LIMIT on the grain cultivated PREVIOUSLY by increasing the OVERALL acreage.
        That's some witty farmers! :grin:
      Increase the OVERALL acreage -------> To circumvent the rule of grain acreage cultivated PREVIOUSLY.

      New increased OVERALL acreage: 200 units
      The quotas will be decided on the new grain acreage( 200 units ) rather than on 100 units.

Answer choice analysis:
    A.) Select in advance currently LESS profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
      Selecting LESS profitable land now would make sense if NO other course of action did.
      However, it would STILL entail some immediate REDUCTION in profits:
      -----------> the land in question is currently LESS profitable, NOT unprofitable.

      The impact of A is DICEY:
        It CAN
          EITHER decrease the immediate profits because of LESS profitable grain fields. - A weakener
          OR increase the overall acreage because of the selection of a number of grain fields in ADVANCE and then retiring them if the quota takes effect. - A strengthener

      Moreover, Selecting in advance the LESS profitable grain fields ----NOT necessarily implies----> increase in OVERALL profits.
      The impact of A is inconsistent and CAN sway in EITHER direction.

    B.) Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
      What if, the grain price INCREASED because of increased demand in the future?
      The farmers would not only be in jeopardy but also be getting less than they deserve because of the fixed price.

    C.) Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
      The idea behind OptionC:
        replacing obsolete tractors ----leads to---> increase in grain acreage.
      Big jump in assumption.
      Efficient tractors NEED not necessarily imply an increase in grain acreage: It may have OTHER effects such as a decrease in production time, higher engine capacity etc.

    D.) Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
      Perfect! Not only explains but also encompasses all the vital considerations of the quota.
      ------> Some farmers! :cool:

    E.) Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.
      We have NO decisive impact of the agreement with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.
        Will they be successful in reducing grain production?
        Will the farmers agree voluntary?
        Will the reduced grain production of SOME farmers safeguard the impact on profits?
      Too many variables moving at once!

To answer your query:
    zoezhuyan wrote:
    dear GMATNinja, gmat1393, GMATNinjaTwo, nightblade354
    anyone can help understand the OE of following:
    Quote:
    Long-term fixed-price contracts would presumably ensure the farmer's profitability from grain cultivation. But that might not occur if the 2) total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation were to significantly increase without the contracts safeguarding against such a case. Perhaps the most important factor, however, is that such long-term contracts could significantly limit the farmer's ability to 1) profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain.

    I did not get it.
    thanks a lot
    Option-B talks of FIXING the price.
    Though Option-B may safeguard the current interest, what if,
      1) the acreage selling price INCREASES because of increased demand in the future? OR, - profit from future upward trends in market demand for grain
      2) the cost of production INCREASES because of higher seed cost, fertilizers, electricity etc? - the total cost of agricultural inputs for grain cultivation
        See the color-coded relevant portions of Option-B.

    The farmers would not only be in jeopardy but also be getting less than they deserve because of the fixed price.
    Ex:
      Initially the price: 100 units/acreage
      The demand increased, raising the price ------> 150 units/acreage.
      By locking/fixing the price, the farmers would be losing money( 50 units/acreage ) if the price increases.

_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The trouble is, you think you have time.” – Buddha
Giving Kudos is the best way to encourage and appreciate people.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 8
GMAT ToolKit User
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2019, 05:18
gmatt1476 wrote:
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any grain not sold on the open market to a grain board at guaranteed prices. It seems inevitable that, in order to curb the resultant escalating overproduction, the grain board will in just a few years have to impose quotas on grain production, limiting farmers to a certain flat percentage of the grain acreage they cultivated previously.

Suppose an individual farmer in Country R wishes to minimize the impact on profits of the grain quota whose eventual imposition is being predicted. If the farmer could do any of the following and wants to select the most effective course of action, which should the farmer do now?

A. Select in advance currently less profitable grain fields and retire them if the quota takes effect.
B. Seek long-term contracts to sell grain at a fixed price.
C. Replace obsolete tractors with more efficient new ones.
D. Put marginal land under cultivation and grow grain on it.
E. Agree with other farmers on voluntary cutbacks in grain production.


CR97561.01


Marginal land definition makes the kill.

Marginal land
is land that is of little agricultural value because crops produced from the area would be worth less than any rent paid for access to the area(wiki).
_________________
GMAT Side effects
-------------------
G-Groggy
M-Mental
A-Annoyed
T-Twitted
GMAT Club Bot
Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra   [#permalink] 08 Nov 2019, 05:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Under the agricultural policies of Country R, farmers can sell any gra

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne