In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that

Question

43. In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that require irrigation has always been higher than the average productivity of farm lands that do not require irrigation. The two Smodges dam is projected to increase the percentage of irrigated land in Melanexa dramatically. Therefore, the average productivity of all farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. In Melanexa, the percentage of lands that are becoming amenable for irrigation is higher now than it was several years ago.
B. The higher average productivity for lands with irrigation is not due largely to a scarcity in Melanexa of such lands which attract large investments.
C. Farm lands with more than one source of irrigation grow more, on average, than the lands with only one irrigation source.
D. There is no other way that the Melanexa's farmland productivity can be raised other than by the Smodges dam.
E. In Melanexa, the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase over the next decade.

OA is  b . Pl explain.

bigoyal · Answer

Hi vaivish,

I think this is quite a tough one. I don't have much reasons to support the so-called "correct choice" B, but I would try to strike-off C, D, E and probably A as well.

Here are my reasons for striking-off these options:

C.  Out of scope  - Nowhere in the paragraph it is mentioned that farmlands with more than one source of irrigation grow more. I assumes 2 dams are same (or atleast similar) source.

D. "There is   no   other" is too extreme. We never know, there can be other ways as well.

E. Note, in the the last line of the paragraph "average productivity of  all  farm lands in Melanexa is likely to increase". ALL can cover both types of farmlands. So we cannot assume that "the average productivity for lands that do not require irrigation will not increase"

A. This option is talking about "present" increase in number of irrigated farmlands, whereas paragraph is talking about "future" possibility.

anyone on correct choice ?

Neochronic · Answer

B is the right assumption..

becoz it assumes that the higher productivity is due to the scarcity of lands which attracts investments..

when we negate this assumption, we can say that higher productivity is due scarcity of lands which attract to large investments i.e even if irrigation comes into picture, they will not attract investment and hence no increase in productivity.

Let me know if want me to explain more.

neeshpal · Answer

yeh B should be it.

If higher productivity is due to something other than irrigation then why would irrigation increases the overall higher productivity.

chicagocubsrule · Answer

B it is. The conclusion assumes that the lands will be more productive because of an increase in irrigation. If however, the shortages are a result of scarce land you can have all the water in the world and it'll make no difference in crop productivity. Answer choice A is incorrect because cannot infer the land productivity in the future to "a few years ago". 
Hope this clarifies things for you.

bkumars8 · Answer

I'd go with B as well as the denial of option B breaks the argument.

aknine · Answer

Ok, but why don't we consider the option 'A'. I feel that it is correct because :
The statements say that the avg. productivity of irrigable farmlands have always been higher than those which do not require irrigation. The 2 Smodges dams would increase the percentage of irrigable land, therefore, the productivity of all the farmlands is likely to increase.

Now, if the farmlands that do not require irrigation increase, the presence of the 2 dams would not affect their productivity, so, the thing that we are assuming here is that, since the presence of the dams would increase the productivity of the irrigable land, therefore, the percentage of land that requires irrigation would be higher than what it was previously.

I do not support 'B' because it is not helping us derive the conclusion that the productivity is going to increase, which is what we need to eventually conclude. It only states that the high productivity of irrigable land is not due to scarcity of such irrigable land which require large investments (dams). 
So, I agree with 'A'.

well.. does that help..???

In Melanexa, the average productivity of farm lands that

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