There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing

Question

There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk. These cows produce trillions of liters of methane gas yearly, and this methane contributes to global warming. The majority of the world’s cows are given relatively low-quality diets even though cows produce less methane when they receive better-quality diets. Therefore, methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets.

Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the conclusion of the argument?

(A) Cows given good-quality diets produce much more meat and milk than they would produce otherwise.

(B) Carbon and hydrogen, the elements that make up methane, are found in abundance in the components of all types of cow feed.

(C) Most farmers would be willing to give their cows high-quality feed if the cost of that feed were lower.

(D) Worldwide, more methane is produced by cows raised for meat production than by those raised for milk production.

(E) Per liter, methane contributes more to global warming than does carbon dioxide, a gas that is thought to be the most significant contributor to global warming.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Prethinking:
  
The argument starts with the demand for more cows for the milk and meat industry. It ends with giving better food to cows for less methane gas production.  What if  changing diets has an impact on the milk and meat industry to an extent that farmers can  no longer continue  that practice? What if bad diet aids in maintaining high produce?

Option A : Good diet leads to more produce from cows, this means, the same amount of cows will be producing more milk and meat but less methane gas. We might even not need to increase the no. of cows for the same desired produce if their productivity rises. So, this option  definitely   adds more trust to the conclusion of the author.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

When I was about 10 years old, my buddy David Holmlund and I heard a news story about methane production from cows and thought it was the height of comedy. How, exactly, did the scientists measure the amount of methane gas emitted per cow? We assumed that some sort of balloon was involved, and a very steady scientist’s hand. I still  do  suppose a balloon is involved, come to think of it. How else would this study be possible? I would love it if someone could sort me out on this.

Unfortunately, this question isn’t about my balloon assumption. Instead, the argument is about whether or not we could stop the bovine fouling of our air by changing cows’ diets. The conclusion is the last sentence: “Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets.”

The first sentence says the population of cows is growing to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk. The world population is about to cross the 7 billion mark. Feeding 7 billion people requires a lot of goddamn cheeseburgers, whether the beef is grass-fed or not. So my objection to the logic is this: If the population of cows keeps growing to keep pace with human demand, might the methane problem also keep growing, even if we give them a better diet? A better diet might reduce methane per cow, but would do nothing to affect the number of cows. And the  number  of cows seems to be the real problem here.

The question asks us to support the conclusion of the argument. The right answer might somehow defend against my devastating objection above.

A) Okay, this is a solid answer. Not only do better diets reduce methane per cow, they also increase meat and milk production  per cow , thus decreasing the  number  of cows required to support the human race’s irresponsible population growth. This defends against my predicted weakener, so I like this answer.

B) If anything, this could only weaken the idea that better diets would change the methane problem. We’re looking for a strengthener. This is out.

C) Please don’t pick answers like this. The conclusion was theoretical:  If we gave cows better diets , we could curb the methane problem. It’s entirely irrelevant whether farmers are actually willing to do this. Notice how A supports the conclusion whether or not farmers are actually willing to make the change in diet. The practical problem is irrelevant since the conclusion is qualified by “ if  we gave cows better diets.” This is out.

D) Meat vs. milk is totally irrelevant. No way. If you picked this answer, I really don’t think you’re paying attention to what the argument is trying to prove.

E) Just like answer D, the methane vs. carbon dioxide issue is totally irrelevant.

Answer A is the only answer that strengthens the idea that better diets will help the methane problem. So our answer is A.

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing to keep pace with the demand for meat and milk. These cows produce trillions of liters of methane gas yearly, and this methane contributes to global warming. The majority of the world’s cows are given relatively low-quality diets. Cows produce less methane when they receive better-quality diets. Conclusion: Methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets. What will strengthen that methane production will be controlled if cows are given better-quality diets? We know that better-quality diets lead to less methane production per cow. It is given as a premise. So something that tells us that fewer cows will be needed if we give them better diet will further help in saying that methane production will be controlled. That is what (A) does. (A) Cows given good-quality diets produce much more meat and milk than they would produce otherwise. This means that milk and meat production per cow will increase will means we will need fewer cows. Plus those cows will proceed less methane. It does suggest that methane production will be controlled. (B) Carbon and hydrogen, the elements that make up methane, are found in abundance in the components of all types of cow feed. Irrelevant. (C) Most farmers would be willing to give their cows high-quality feed if the cost of that feed were lower. We don't care whether farmers will actually be willing to give high-quality feed and if yes then under what conditions. Our point is whether methane production will be controlled IF farmers do give high-quality feed. It is a conditional conclusion. We don't have to worry about whether the actual condition will be met or not. The point is that if the condition is met, what will happen? If farmers do give high quality feed, what will happen? (D) Worldwide, more methane is produced by cows raised for meat production than by those raised for milk production. Differentiation between the types of cows is out of scope. (E) Per liter, methane contributes more to global warming than does carbon dioxide, a gas that is thought to be the most significant contributor to global warming. We are only concerned about reducing methane, not its comparison with other pollutants. Answer (A) Discussion on Strengthen Questions: https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk

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.

There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing

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

There are 1.3 billion cows worldwide, and this population is growing

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