Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite

Question

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.

14101992 · Accepted Answer

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.   Irrelevant.  
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.  Again Irrelevent 
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite.  The first line says the opposite. Wrong. 
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans.  If this is assumed also, we get no where to the conclusion. Wrong. 
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.  If this is true, then food is available for more people and hence we can say that food for livestock is one of the reason for less food crop for humans. Right Choice.

E will be the answer.

abhimahna · Answer

The argument is saying people consider Food Scarcity = F(Finite Limits, Population Growth Rate).

But the author is saying this is not the case. Most of the resources are wasted on Animals. So, the above relation is invalid.

Assumption: If those animals don't use the food, it would be available for people. This is what option E is saying. Hence, E is correct.

(A) People prefer eating meat to eating grain.  : We don't care about what people prefer. 
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more expensive than grain.  Price is OFS. 
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are not finite. :  This is breaking the fact.  
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans.  Ok. what about the other half? 
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people.  Correct for the reasons stated above.

unraveled · Answer

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite limits of the earth’s resources, coupled with a relentless rate of population growth. This analysis fails to recognize, however, that much of the world’s agricultural resources are used to feed livestock instead of people. In the United States, for example, almost one-half of the agricultural acreage is devoted to crops fed to livestock. A steer reduces twenty-one pounds of inexpensive grain to one pound of expensive meat. Thus, the scarcity of food is not merely a function of limited resources and population growth.

Which one of the following is an assumption that would allow the conclusion in the argument to be properly drawn?

(A) People  prefer  eating meat to eating grain. - WRONG. Irrelevant
(B) Meat is twenty-one times more  expensive  than grain. - WRONG. Irrelevant
(C) The limits of the earth’s agricultural resources are  not finite . - WRONG. Reverse of logic is not necessarily true. 
(D) More than one-half of the agricultural acreage in the United States is devoted to crops fed to humans. - WRONG. A worthy contender to look at but whether it makes enough strong a case. Not so. Not a necessary requirement.
(E) Growing crops for human consumption on the acreage currently devoted to crops for livestock will yield more food for more people. - CORRECT. If not then passage falls apart.

Answer E.

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.

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite

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

Some people say that the scarcity of food is a function of the finite

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