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 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.
14 Jan 2010, 18:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (01:52) correct
33%
(01:56)
wrong
based on 1944
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Federal agricultural programs aimed at benefiting one group whose livelihood depends on farming often end up harming another such group.
Which of the following statements provides support for the claim above?
I. An effort to help feed-grain producers resulted in higher prices for their crops, but the higher prices decreased the profits of livestock producers.
II. In order to reduce crop surpluses and increase prices, growers of certain crops were paid to leave a portion of their land idle, but the reduction was not achieved because improvements in efficiency resulted in higher production on the land in use.
III. Many farm workers were put out of work when a program meant to raise the price of grain provided grain growers with an incentive to reduce production by giving them surplus grain from government reserves.
(A) I, but not II and not III
(B) II, but not I and not III
(C) I and III, but not II
(D) II and III, but not I
(E) I, II and III
Which of the following statements provides support for the claim above?
I. An effort to help feed-grain producers resulted in higher prices for their crops, but the higher prices decreased the profits of livestock producers.
II. In order to reduce crop surpluses and increase prices, growers of certain crops were paid to leave a portion of their land idle, but the reduction was not achieved because improvements in efficiency resulted in higher production on the land in use.
III. Many farm workers were put out of work when a program meant to raise the price of grain provided grain growers with an incentive to reduce production by giving them surplus grain from government reserves.
(A) I, but not II and not III
(B) II, but not I and not III
(C) I and III, but not II
(D) II and III, but not I
(E) I, II and III
16 Jan 2010, 13:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO...C...
Explanation:
Federal agricultural programs aimed at benefiting one group whose livelihood depends on farming often end up harming another such group.
Case 1:
An effort to help feed-grain producers resulted in higher prices for their crops, but the higher prices decreased the profits of livestock producers.
Group benefited = feed-grain producers
Group harmed = livestock producers
Case 2:
In order to reduce crop surpluses and increase prices, growers of certain crops were paid to leave a portion of their land idle, but the reduction was not achieved because improvements in efficiency resulted in higher production on the land in use.
Since the reduction in crop surplus didn't happen, ideally this case doesn't given any benefit of a group on the cost of another group's harm!
Case 3:
Many farm workers were put out of work when a program meant to raise the price of grain provided grain growers with an incentive to reduce production by giving them surplus grain from government reserves
Group benefited = Grain growers - They got the grains without actually growing them
Group harmed = Farm workers - No employment as no grains were actually grown.
hence case 1 and case 3 support the claim in the question.
Explanation:
Federal agricultural programs aimed at benefiting one group whose livelihood depends on farming often end up harming another such group.
Case 1:
An effort to help feed-grain producers resulted in higher prices for their crops, but the higher prices decreased the profits of livestock producers.
Group benefited = feed-grain producers
Group harmed = livestock producers
Case 2:
In order to reduce crop surpluses and increase prices, growers of certain crops were paid to leave a portion of their land idle, but the reduction was not achieved because improvements in efficiency resulted in higher production on the land in use.
Since the reduction in crop surplus didn't happen, ideally this case doesn't given any benefit of a group on the cost of another group's harm!
Case 3:
Many farm workers were put out of work when a program meant to raise the price of grain provided grain growers with an incentive to reduce production by giving them surplus grain from government reserves
Group benefited = Grain growers - They got the grains without actually growing them
Group harmed = Farm workers - No employment as no grains were actually grown.
hence case 1 and case 3 support the claim in the question.
General Discussion
16 Jan 2010, 16:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
jeeteshsingh ...very good explanation
