A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Logically Completes

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ______.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants

with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required

with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches.	What it says: New machine lets farmers plant corn rows much closer together - 15 inches vs normal 30 inches What it does: Sets up the basic technology change this argument will discuss What it is: Author's premise about new technology Visualization: Normal planting: Row---30 inches---Row vs New machine: Row-15 inches-Row
Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant.	What it says: When corn is planted closer together, each individual plant produces less corn What it does: Introduces a negative consequence that seems to contradict the benefit of the new machine What it is: Author's premise about agricultural consequence Visualization: Normal spacing: Each plant = 10 ears vs Close spacing: Each plant = 6 ears
Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because ______.	What it says: Despite lower yields per plant, farmers will still make twice as much money per acre, and we need to find the reason What it does: Sets up the conclusion that contradicts the negative effect and asks us to complete the logic What it is: Author's conclusion with missing explanation

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a technological advance (closer planting), then presents what seems like a problem (lower yields per plant), but concludes this will actually double profits. We need to bridge the gap between the apparent problem and the profit increase.

Main Conclusion:

The new corn harvesting machine will allow farmers to double their profits per acre despite lower yields per individual plant.

Logical Structure:

This is a 'fill-in-the-blank' argument where we have premises about closer planting and lower individual yields, plus a conclusion about doubled profits. The missing piece must explain how planting twice as many plants per acre (due to closer spacing) more than compensates for the lower yield per plant, resulting in higher total profits.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Logically Completes - We need to find the missing piece that explains how farmers can double their profits per acre despite each plant producing less corn

Precision of Claims

The argument deals with precise quantitative relationships: 15 inches vs 30 inches spacing, lower yields per plant, and doubled profits per acre. We need to find what bridges the gap between reduced individual plant yield and increased overall profitability

Strategy

Since we know that closer spacing reduces yield per plant but somehow doubles profits per acre, we need to think about what could make this math work. The key insight is that even though each plant produces less, we might be able to fit significantly more plants in the same space. We should look for explanations that show how the total yield per acre or cost savings could overcome the per-plant reduction

Answer Choices Explained

with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation

This choice explains that closer spacing creates a dense leaf canopy that shades the ground, reducing expensive weed control and irrigation costs. This directly addresses how profits could double despite lower per-plant yields - by significantly cutting major farming expenses. The dense canopy is a logical consequence of closer planting, and reduced costs for weed control and irrigation could easily account for doubled profits per acre. This perfectly completes the logical gap in the argument.

with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants

While closer spacing might force plants to grow taller due to competition for sunlight, this doesn't explain how profits would double. Taller plants don't necessarily mean higher yields or lower costs, and the argument already states that yields per plant will be lower. This choice doesn't bridge the gap between lower individual yields and doubled profits.

with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required

This choice actually works against the conclusion by suggesting that more fertilizer will be required with closer spacing. Additional fertilizer costs would reduce profits, not double them. This contradicts the argument's conclusion about doubled profits and provides no explanation for how the economic benefit would be achieved.

with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double

This seems promising at first since doubling the number of plants could theoretically compensate for lower per-plant yields. However, the choice says the number will 'almost double,' which combined with lower yields per plant, wouldn't be sufficient to double profits. We'd need significantly more than double the plants to overcome both lower yields and account for doubled profits.

This choice suggests that more intensive land use will require more frequent fallow years, meaning fields will be left unplanted more often. This would reduce overall productivity and profits over time, directly contradicting the conclusion about doubled profits. This works against the argument rather than supporting it.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...