In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropica

Question

In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropical crops. In actuality, it is not. The reason is that 97 percent of all land is owned by clans and cannot be bought or sold by individuals, and thus the kinds of realignment of properties that would be necessary to achieve maximum production for export have been impossible to achieve.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the explanation given above?

(A) Who owns the 3 percent of the land in Papua New Guinea that is not owned by clans?

(B) What percentage of Papua New Guinea’s current production of tropical crops is consumed within the country?

(C) How much longer is land ownership by clans expected to remain the prevailing cultural pattern in Papua New Guinea?

(D) Which of the tropical crops currently grown in Papua New Guinea could be exported if there were a surplus for export?

(E) How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible?

sayan640 · Accepted Answer

The conclusion is :- In actuality , Papua New Guinea could NOT be a substantial exporter of tropical crops.

Premise :- The reason is that 97 percent of all land is owned by clans and cannot be bought or sold by individuals, and thus the kinds of realignment of properties that would be necessary to achieve maximum production for export have been impossible to achieve.

Option A , B, C, D are irrelevant.

Lets analyze option E.

How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible?

When at one extreme ,
 Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops is less than maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible.

The conclusion is HELPED AND flows logically. We can say that " In actuality , Papua New Guinea could NOT be a substantial exporter of tropical crops."

When at another extreme ,
Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops is greater than maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible.

Then we can say that "In actuality , Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropical crops." The conclusion is HURT.

The conclusion gets HELPED and HURT at the two extremes of the statement E.
Hence E is the answer.

Please give me kudo s if you liked my explanation.

generis   GMATNinja

Hades · Answer

The main point of the argument is production capacity sucks right now, we need to realign land to increase production (think Mugabe & the farmers in Zimbabwe).

What if production decreases? That would weaken it. What if production increases it? That would strengthen it.

E asks this question.

Final Answer,  E .

Minheequang · Answer

IMO  B .

Objective of the argument:  whether Papua new guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropical crops 
IMO, to evaluate a country as a big exporter, we should calculate its export capacity within its total production capacity. If the figure is >50, it is, if <50 it is not

In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropical crops. In actuality, it is not. The reason is that 97 percent of all land is owned by clans and cannot be bought or sold by individuals, and thus the kinds of realignment of properties that would be necessary to achieve maximum production for export have been impossible to achieve. 
The answer to which of the following questions would be most relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the explanation given above? 
(A) Who owns the 3 percent of the land in Papua New Guinea that is not owned by clans? --> 3% is of negligible effective in evaluating
(B) What percentage of Papua New Guinea’s current production of tropical crops is consumed within the country? --> best 
(C) How much longer is land ownership by clans expected to remain the prevailing cultural pattern in Papua New Guinea? -->if in short-term clan ownership no longer remains, it does not mean that a large proportion of properties can be produced for export. If in longterm ..., blah blah blah --> wrong
(D) Which of the tropical crops currently grown in Papua New Guinea could be exported if there were a surplus for export --> irrelevant
(E) How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible? -->this is maximum capacity of production for the whole needs of Papua, not only for export. So, this comparison is not relevant

Hades · Answer

Minheequang, I see your logic. But lets say 50% of it is consumed at home, and 50% is exported. What if realigning triples output? Consumption at home would stay the same, an even bigger proportional increase to exports.

What if all of it is exported (ie none consumed at home)? What if we could still optimize production?

The answer to that question has no bearing as to whether we can increase (or decrease) production.

Hence B is not the answer.

Minheequang · Answer

Ok, agree that maximum production surely leads to maximum export, but you can't ever be sure that each time total production capacity increases, export will increases and national consumption will remain. There is also possibility that both export and national consumption increase, of course in estimated figures

Back to the main point, what if export fills only 10% of total production capacity, even when it reaches to the maximum rate. Can we call it substantial ? So, my point for solving this question is comparing export and national consumption rate

Hades · Answer

I think you're overthinking it.

The argument is "No land allocation <==> No maximal production"

Also land allocation <==> maximal production

We need to know if we can achieve maximal production.

The consumption at home is irrelevant to maximizing production, as we're talking about production, not consumption.

Avoid overthinking or reading too deep...

priyankurml · Answer

OA is E.

here is my explanation:
conclusion: Papua New Guinea could  NOT  be a substantial exporter of tropical crops
Why?
Premise: (evidence) 97 percent of all land is owned by clans so realignment of properties is required to achieve maximum production.
(A) Who owns the 3 percent of the land in Papua New Guinea that is not owned by clans? 
 -- Not required to know the 3% 
(B) What percentage of Papua New Guinea’s current production of tropical crops is consumed within the country? 
 -- Lets assume that they consume 100%/0%. Can it say that "realignment" is not necessary to achieve exports? 
(C) How much longer is land ownership by clans expected to remain the  prevailing cultural pattern  in Papua New Guinea? -- OOS
(D) Which of the tropical crops currently grown in Papua New Guinea could be exported if there were a surplus for export?
 -- Variety of corps is OOS  
(E) How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible?
 -- Here it seeks that how "maximum capacity" relates with "property realignment". Say they relate 100%, so such alignment would be beneficial otherwise alignment would be completely futile.

Thank you all for nice discussions.

gmatdordie · Answer

B and E were tough choices!!!
The answer to which of the following questions would be most relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the explanation given above?

(A) Who owns the 3 percent of the land in Papua New Guinea that is not owned by clans? -irrelelvant

(B) What percentage of Papua New Guinea’s current production of tropical crops is consumed within the country? -hold on here

(C) How much longer is land ownership by clans expected to remain the prevailing cultural pattern in Papua New Guinea? irrelelvant

(D) Which of the tropical crops currently grown in Papua New Guinea could be exported if there were a surplus for export? irrelelvant

(E) How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible?

-hold on here-talks about increase in produxtion capacity

I chose E, but i was not 100% sure how to eliminate B

rahul6019 · Answer

E is the right answer as it sticks directly to the core of the argument. Until we know how new measures will compare with current ones, we cannot say for sure whether this plan will work or not. It can go very well in opposite direction too. May be new owners use the property for other needs or just keep them non-utilized. We have no data about that.

DrVanNostrand · Answer

I think the correct answer is "E." For example, if the total current capacity is 100 and 80 is the domestic consumption.20 is the only export available. However, the realignment can increase the capacity to 150. Here, we have to compare the current capacity versus the potential capacity. Domestic consumption has no bearing on the answer.

HeenaKandoi · Answer

Can anyone explain why not option C, please?

DrVanNostrand · Answer

The answer cannot be C because it is irrelevant. We have to take "97 percent of all land is owned by clans and cannot be bought or sold by individuals" as given.

sanchitb23 · Answer

I did E as an last minute impulse, but can you please provide option by option reason of eliminating Option B,C

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropical crops. - Opinion + Premise 
In actuality, it is not. - Fact 
The reason is that 97 percent of all land is owned by clans and cannot be bought or sold by individuals, and thus the kinds of realignment of properties that would be necessary to achieve maximum production for export have been impossible to achieve. - Supporting premise + Conclusion

Option Elimination - Evaluating the adequacy of the explanation given above.

(A) Who owns the 3 percent of the land in Papua New Guinea that is not owned by clans? - How does it even matter who owns it? Out of scope.

(B) What percentage of Papua New Guinea’s current production of tropical crops is consumed within the country? - Say it's 1% or 99%. But how does that relate to the scope of the argument, which is the "issue of whether property realignment is the primary hindrance to exporting tropical crops from Papua New Guinea." Out of scope.

(C) How much longer is land ownership by clans expected to remain the prevailing cultural pattern in Papua New Guinea? - Out of scope.

(D) Which of the tropical crops currently grown in Papua New Guinea could be exported if there were a surplus for export? - Out of scope.

(E) How does Papua New Guinea’s current production capacity for tropical crops compare with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible? Ok. 
Say, it's close - then the validity of the reason is weakened. Then "property realignment is not the primary hindrance to exporting tropical crops from Papua New Guinea"
Say there is a major gap, then this reasoning is strengthened.

rightday1121 · Answer

I appreciate your thought process behind Choice E here. I had a tough time choosing between Choice B and Choice E for this question. As you stated, the "maximum capacity" that property realignment would make possible in this scenario for PNG relates to said "property realignment". In actuality, the argument to the original question is that Papua New Guinea, in actuality is NOT a substantial exporter of tropical crops. So the argument hinges on the answer to ths question in E. I liked your explanation and the fact is that if current production capacity compares FAVORABLY with the maximum capacity that property realignment would make possible, the property realignment would perhaps be relevant and more fruitful in evaluating the adequacy of the explanation. If current production capacity compares UNFAVORABLY with the max capacity...property realignment would be less relevant and thus would not be an adequate explanation for why PNG is not a substantial exporter of tropical crops.

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.

In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropica

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In theory, Papua New Guinea could be a substantial exporter of tropica

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