Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
06 Mar 2010, 00:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (01:49) correct
33%
(02:14)
wrong
based on 697
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Canadian wheat farmers produced so much wheat over the last season that wheat prices plummeted. The government tried to boost wheat prices by offering farmers who agreed not to harvest 20 percent of their wheat field compensation up to a specified maximum per farm. The Canadian government's program,... if successful, will not be a net burden on the budget.
Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) If prices were allowed to remain low, the farms would be operating at a loss, causing the government to lose tax revenue on farm profits.
(B) Wheat production in several countries declined the year that the compensation program went into effect in Canada.
(C) The first year that the compensation program was in effect, wheat acreage in Canada ... See Morewas 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large wheat farms the compensation was less per acre for those acres than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for compensation program could not use the land not harvested for wheat to grow another crop.
Which of the following, if true, is the best basis for an explanation of how this could be so?
(A) If prices were allowed to remain low, the farms would be operating at a loss, causing the government to lose tax revenue on farm profits.
(B) Wheat production in several countries declined the year that the compensation program went into effect in Canada.
(C) The first year that the compensation program was in effect, wheat acreage in Canada ... See Morewas 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large wheat farms the compensation was less per acre for those acres than they were for smaller farms.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for compensation program could not use the land not harvested for wheat to grow another crop.
11 Mar 2010, 14:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey All,
So Vann's explanation here was fantastic, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. We don't get a lot of "Explain the Discrepancy" questions here on the forums, so I have to take one when I can get it. I just wanted to remind you all that there is still a process, which I'd like to model for you.
Instead of a typical CR outline (conclusions/premises/assumptions), discrepancy questions revolve around one question. Just make sure you REWORD/PARAPHRASE that question, and actually write it down. If you have confidence in it, you'll see how all the wrong answer choices fail to resolve your issue.
In this case, the discrepancy is fairly straightforward: How can the government pay a bunch of money to farms and yet not lose money?
It should be obvious that the correct answer better describe how the government is MAKING money in some other way:
(A) If prices were allowed to remain low, the farms would be operating at a loss, causing the government to lose tax revenue on farm profits.
ANSWER: This answer choice is a bit tricky, because instead of describing DIRECTLY how the government might gain money, it explains how the payments to farms will keep it from losing EVEN MORE money.
(B) Wheat production in several countries declined the year that the compensation program went into effect in Canada.
PROBLEM: See, without a rephrase of the question, this is the kind of weird indirect answer choice that you'd end up staring at for 30 seconds. But it doesn't remotely relate to the government making money, so we can cross it off.
(C) The first year that the compensation program was in effect, wheat acreage in Canada was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
PROBLEM: Again, a bit of statistics to make you think you're missing something. But the amount of acreage is irrelevant, because we need to get more money to the government somehow.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large wheat farms the compensation was less per acre for those acres than they were for smaller farms.
PROBLEM: This sucks for the farms, but still doesn't tell us anything about our discrepancy.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for compensation program could not use the land not harvested for wheat to grow another crop.
PROBLEM: Again, sucks to be a farmer.
The process is great because it helps you center your attention. This question is about THE GOVERNMENT, and answer choice A is the only one that even mentions the government by name!
Hope that helps!
-t
So Vann's explanation here was fantastic, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. We don't get a lot of "Explain the Discrepancy" questions here on the forums, so I have to take one when I can get it. I just wanted to remind you all that there is still a process, which I'd like to model for you.
Instead of a typical CR outline (conclusions/premises/assumptions), discrepancy questions revolve around one question. Just make sure you REWORD/PARAPHRASE that question, and actually write it down. If you have confidence in it, you'll see how all the wrong answer choices fail to resolve your issue.
In this case, the discrepancy is fairly straightforward: How can the government pay a bunch of money to farms and yet not lose money?
It should be obvious that the correct answer better describe how the government is MAKING money in some other way:
(A) If prices were allowed to remain low, the farms would be operating at a loss, causing the government to lose tax revenue on farm profits.
ANSWER: This answer choice is a bit tricky, because instead of describing DIRECTLY how the government might gain money, it explains how the payments to farms will keep it from losing EVEN MORE money.
(B) Wheat production in several countries declined the year that the compensation program went into effect in Canada.
PROBLEM: See, without a rephrase of the question, this is the kind of weird indirect answer choice that you'd end up staring at for 30 seconds. But it doesn't remotely relate to the government making money, so we can cross it off.
(C) The first year that the compensation program was in effect, wheat acreage in Canada was 5% below its level in the base year for the program.
PROBLEM: Again, a bit of statistics to make you think you're missing something. But the amount of acreage is irrelevant, because we need to get more money to the government somehow.
(D) The specified maximum per farm meant that for very large wheat farms the compensation was less per acre for those acres than they were for smaller farms.
PROBLEM: This sucks for the farms, but still doesn't tell us anything about our discrepancy.
(E) Farmers who wished to qualify for compensation program could not use the land not harvested for wheat to grow another crop.
PROBLEM: Again, sucks to be a farmer.
The process is great because it helps you center your attention. This question is about THE GOVERNMENT, and answer choice A is the only one that even mentions the government by name!
Hope that helps!
-t
General Discussion
06 Mar 2010, 11:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
The reason it's A is that if the prices remain low then the government will miss out on the tax revenue from the farms because the farms won't make any profit at all. But if the government pays this price then it will make money as long as the farms make money. A is the best answer. However, A doesn't fully prove that the money the gov't will get is more than it will outlay which is needed for the last sentence in the stem to be true. A just gives the possibility for it to be true.
