Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.

Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.

The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.

The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.

People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Gortland has long been narrowly self-sufficient in both grain and meat.	What it says: Gortland produces just enough grain and meat for its own needs What it does: Sets up the starting point - shows Gortland's current balanced situation What it is: Author's background claim
However, as per capita income in Gortland has risen toward the world average, per capita consumption of meat has also risen toward the world average	What it says: As people get richer, they eat more meat - moving toward world normal levels What it does: Introduces a shift from the stable situation - signals change is happening What it is: Author's factual observation Visualization: Income: $\$30\mathrm{K} \rightarrow \$45\mathrm{K}$, Meat consumption: $50\,\mathrm{lbs/year} \rightarrow 75\,\mathrm{lbs/year}$
and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.	What it says: Making meat requires multiple pounds of grain input What it does: Connects the increased meat consumption to grain demand - shows the hidden cost What it is: Author's factual statement Visualization: $1\,\mathrm{lb\,meat} = 4\,\mathrm{lbs\,grain\,needed}$
Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase, Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both	What it says: Rising income means more meat demand, but grain production stays flat, so imports become necessary What it does: Combines previous facts to reach the main conclusion - shows the logical outcome What it is: Author's conclusion Visualization: Future: Income $\$45\mathrm{K} \rightarrow \$55\mathrm{K}$, Meat demand $75 \rightarrow 90\,\mathrm{lbs}$, Grain production stays at $1000\,\mathrm{tons}$, Gap = imports needed

Argument Flow:

The argument moves from current stability to future problems. We start with Gortland being self-sufficient, then learn that rising income creates more meat demand, which secretly creates more grain demand (since meat needs grain to produce). Finally, we see that since grain production won't increase but demand will, imports become unavoidable.

Main Conclusion:

Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.

Logical Structure:

The conclusion relies on a chain reaction: rising income → more meat consumption → higher grain demand → but grain production stays the same → therefore imports are needed. Each link in this chain must hold for the conclusion to work.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the conclusion to hold. The argument concludes that Gortland will need to import grain or meat because rising income leads to more meat consumption, which requires more grain, but grain production won't increase.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about: (1) current self-sufficiency status, (2) relationship between income and meat consumption, (3) grain-to-meat conversion ratio, (4) future income trends, and (5) static grain production levels.

Strategy

For assumption questions, we need to identify gaps in the logical chain that could make the conclusion false if not true. We'll look for unstated conditions that must hold for the 'rising income → more meat → more grain needed → imports required' logic to work. We need to find what could break this chain while respecting all the facts given.

Answer Choices Explained

The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will soon decrease.

This talks about total acreage devoted to grain production decreasing. However, the argument already tells us that 'domestic grain production will not increase' - this is a given fact, not an assumption. The argument doesn't depend on acreage actually decreasing; it just needs production to stay flat while demand rises. This choice goes beyond what the argument requires.

Importing either grain or meat will not result in a significantly higher percentage of Gortlanders' incomes being spent on food than is currently the case.

This addresses the economic feasibility of imports and spending patterns, but the argument doesn't depend on this. The conclusion is simply that Gortland will need to import grain or meat - whether this creates financial burden is irrelevant to the logical chain about supply and demand that leads to this conclusion.

The per capita consumption of meat in Gortland is increasing at roughly the same rate across all income levels.

The argument doesn't require that meat consumption increases at the same rate across all income levels. As long as overall per capita meat consumption rises (which is given), the conclusion follows. The distribution pattern across different income groups doesn't affect the core logic.

The per capita income of meat producers in Gortland is rising faster than the per capita income of grain producers.

The relative income changes between meat and grain producers is irrelevant to the argument's logic. The argument is about consumption patterns and supply constraints, not about the relative prosperity of different types of producers.

People in Gortland who increase their consumption of meat will not radically decrease their consumption of grain.

This is the correct assumption. The argument concludes that rising meat consumption will increase total grain demand, but this only works if people don't radically decrease their direct grain consumption when eating more meat. If they did drastically cut grain intake, total grain demand might not rise despite higher meat consumption, breaking the logical chain that leads to the need for imports. The argument must assume this won't happen for its conclusion to be valid.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...