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 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
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 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.
07 Mar 2026, 23:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (02:34) correct
22%
(02:59)
wrong
based on 68
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Crop insurance, intended to be a safety net for farmers facing unpredictable weather and natural disasters, tends to encourage riskier agricultural practices. Crop insurance provides a guaranteed payout if yields fall below a certain level. This financial security allows farmers to take on more debt for potentially high-reward ventures. Farmers might be tempted to plant riskier crops, such as those more susceptible to pests or diseases, that offer the potential for higher profits. While insurance provides a financial buffer, repeated reliance on it due to risky practices can weaken a farm's long-term resilience. Crop insurance payouts might not fully cover the costs of a failed harvest, especially if the farmer took on significant debt to invest in risky ventures. A series of bad years or a particularly damaging pest outbreak could leave a farmer heavily in debt despite insurance payouts.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a preliminary conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence presented elsewhere in the given argument; the second is the main conclusion that this preliminary conclusion supports.
B. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
C. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.
D. The first describes a discovery as undermining the position against which the argument is directed; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first describes a negative consequence of the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides a specific example that supports that explanation.
Source=TCYOnline
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A. The first is a preliminary conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence presented elsewhere in the given argument; the second is the main conclusion that this preliminary conclusion supports.
B. The first describes the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
C. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.
D. The first describes a discovery as undermining the position against which the argument is directed; the second states the main conclusion of the argument.
E. The first describes a negative consequence of the circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides a specific example that supports that explanation.
Source=TCYOnline
07 Mar 2026, 23:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Right Answer Explanation / Suggested Answer :
1. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't function as a separate preliminary conclusion. It describes a consequence arising directly from the main argument (crop insurance encouraging risky practices). The main conclusion of the argument is that crop insurance, intended as a safety net, can have unintended consequences by encouraging risky practices that weaken farms' long-term resilience. The first boldfaced portion directly supports this conclusion, not a separate preliminary one.
2. Not correct. The circumstance is the unintended consequence of crop insurance encouraging risky practices. The first boldfaced portion explains a consequence of that circumstance (risky practices), which is the weakening of long-term resilience. The second boldfaced portion, however, does not provide evidence in support of the explanation. It highlights a situation, where even with insurance, a farmer can end up in debt, supporting the idea that crop insurance might not fully guarantee long-term resilience.
3. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't necessarily present a finding. It describes a consequence arising from the main argument (crop insurance encouraging risky practices). The argument does explore the implications of relying on crop insurance for risky practices, specifically the implication that it weakens long-term resilience. The second boldfaced portion doesn't directly argue against deriving implications from the first boldfaced part. Instead, it offers a cautionary note by highlighting a situation where the initial buffer provided by insurance (implied in the first boldfaced part) might not be enough.
4. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't present a new discovery. The argument doesn't target a specific opposing position. It highlights an unintended outcome (risky practices) associated with a seemingly positive policy (crop insurance). The second boldfaced portion doesn't state the main conclusion of the argument. The main conclusion is that crop insurance, while intended as a safety net, can have unintended consequences by encouraging risky practices that weaken long-term resilience.
5. Correct. The first boldfaced portion explains how repeated reliance on insurance for risky ventures weakens a farm's long-term resilience, which is a negative consequence of the circumstance (risky practices) that the argument as a whole seeks to explain. The second boldfaced portion is a specific example – pest outbreak could leave a farmer heavily in debt.
1. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't function as a separate preliminary conclusion. It describes a consequence arising directly from the main argument (crop insurance encouraging risky practices). The main conclusion of the argument is that crop insurance, intended as a safety net, can have unintended consequences by encouraging risky practices that weaken farms' long-term resilience. The first boldfaced portion directly supports this conclusion, not a separate preliminary one.
2. Not correct. The circumstance is the unintended consequence of crop insurance encouraging risky practices. The first boldfaced portion explains a consequence of that circumstance (risky practices), which is the weakening of long-term resilience. The second boldfaced portion, however, does not provide evidence in support of the explanation. It highlights a situation, where even with insurance, a farmer can end up in debt, supporting the idea that crop insurance might not fully guarantee long-term resilience.
3. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't necessarily present a finding. It describes a consequence arising from the main argument (crop insurance encouraging risky practices). The argument does explore the implications of relying on crop insurance for risky practices, specifically the implication that it weakens long-term resilience. The second boldfaced portion doesn't directly argue against deriving implications from the first boldfaced part. Instead, it offers a cautionary note by highlighting a situation where the initial buffer provided by insurance (implied in the first boldfaced part) might not be enough.
4. Not correct. The first boldfaced portion doesn't present a new discovery. The argument doesn't target a specific opposing position. It highlights an unintended outcome (risky practices) associated with a seemingly positive policy (crop insurance). The second boldfaced portion doesn't state the main conclusion of the argument. The main conclusion is that crop insurance, while intended as a safety net, can have unintended consequences by encouraging risky practices that weaken long-term resilience.
5. Correct. The first boldfaced portion explains how repeated reliance on insurance for risky ventures weakens a farm's long-term resilience, which is a negative consequence of the circumstance (risky practices) that the argument as a whole seeks to explain. The second boldfaced portion is a specific example – pest outbreak could leave a farmer heavily in debt.
Amity007
Moderators:
