The productivity of food crops per acre doubled, so the total food pro

Question

The productivity of food crops per acre doubled, so the total food production in the country has also doubled.

Which of the following, if true, will seriously weaken the claim above?

A. The amount of cultivable land has increased .
B. The farmers have moved from the cultivation of food crops to that of cash crops significantly.
C. The farmers got adequate supply of fertilizers.
D. The labor cost did not increase significantly.
E. The cost of fertilizer did not increase at all.

daagh · Answer

The overall pordcuction figures could also be due to horizintal factors such as increase in the cultivated area rather than just due to vertical factors such increase in productivity per a given area. 
B is the choice that will weaken the given claim.

Sorry! B is a typo It should be A (edited after aaditya's post)

Rajat4u · Answer

How does the productivity will be doubled with the increased land area to contradict the food production ?

Posted from my mobile device

ArtVandaley · Answer

Can you recheck the answer??

I concur with  daagh  that B has to be a valid weakener. A has no bearing on the argument

Posted from my mobile device

Ayushpandiya · Answer

I think the valid answer to be A as if the cultivation land has increased then the productivity of land will more than double thereby weakening the statement.

aaditya005 · Answer

Hi  daagh ,
 Did you mean A here as it seems you mentioned B by mistake?

Posted from my mobile device

daagh · Answer

aaditya
Yes. that was a typo. A is the choice

abhishek001 · Answer

My point is its mentioned that productivity per acre doubled so even cultivation land increased it has no bearing. None of the answers look formidable but if u have to chose one i would still go for B.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

daagh · Answer

The conclusion is that the total production has doubled. Productivity doubling is only a premise. 
The total production is not a one factor -dependant. Choice A implies that if the total cultivated land increases when productivity doubles, then the total production should have more than doubled. However, it is remaining just double. Therefore, the overall productivity must have come down. This eventuality weakens the conclusion.
Let's consider this by a formula. 
10 farmers * five fruits each = 50 
10 farmers* 10 fruits each = 100 
Now let's assume now there are 15 farmers .The 15 farmers *10 each = 150 fruits. However, this has not happened. The total production stands at the same 100. The real productivity therefore will be 100/15 = 6.6 fruits per head. 
See, when the numerator remains the same and the denominator goes up over the previous one, then the final result will be a lessening of the effect. 
On the contrary, look at B. The number of farmers for the food crops has come down due to diversion. Therefore, if the previous figure of production was doubled, then the fewer farmers must have produced more than double the previous productivity. This strengthens the conclusion that increase in productivity is responsible for doubling of the production.

This as far as I could see in this case.

Kunal575 · Answer

Hi  daagh , 
I feel the answer should be B. 
IMO Conclusion: Productivity per acre 2X ---> total FOOD production 2X
and  NOT  productivity per acre 2X ---> overall productivity is 2X

Thus, Answer choice A becomes irrelevant. even if there were 100 acres of farm earlier producing 200 KG of potatoes and now there is say 150 acres of farm, it will produce 300 KG of potatoes. 
Answer choice B says that The farmers have moved from the cultivation of  food crops  to that of  cash crops  significantly. it clearly distinguishes between food crop and cash crop. Since that's the case, I read it as cash crops are not food crops. thus, even though total production might have been 2X, total  FOOD Production   is not 2X.

Let me know if I am wrong in my logic.

jatin093 · Answer

Hi  daagh

What if the total land area for cultivation of food crops reduces significantly; doubled productivity of food crops per acre won't hold then...?

B is inline with this prethinking.
Please suggest where i went wrong..

Thanks

The productivity of food crops per acre doubled, so the total food pro

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

The productivity of food crops per acre doubled, so the total food pro

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