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 not decrease substantially.

The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing prosperity.

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

In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.

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 to meet its own needs What it does: Sets up the current baseline situation for the country What it is: Author's background information
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 what's typical globally What it does: Introduces a change that contrasts with the stable situation described earlier What it is: Author's observation about changing consumption patterns 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 as input What it does: Explains the resource relationship that makes the meat consumption increase significant What it is: Author's factual statement Visualization: $4 \mathrm{lbs\ grain} \rightarrow 1 \mathrm{lb\ meat}$
Therefore, since per capita income continues to rise, whereas domestic grain production will not increase	What it says: Income keeps going up but grain production stays flat What it does: Combines the trends to set up a potential problem What it is: Author's premise combining future projections Visualization: Year 1: $\mathrm{Income\ } \$45\mathrm{k}, \mathrm{Grain\ } 1000 \mathrm{tons}$; Year 5: $\mathrm{Income\ } \$60\mathrm{k}, \mathrm{Grain\ still\ } 1000 \mathrm{tons}$
Gortland will soon have to import either grain or meat or both.	What it says: Gortland will need to buy food from other countries What it does: States the main conclusion based on all the previous information What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with Gortland's current self-sufficient status, then shows how rising incomes lead to higher meat consumption. We learn that meat production requires lots of grain, then we're told income will keep rising but grain production won't increase. This creates a supply-demand mismatch that forces the conclusion about importing food.

Main Conclusion:

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

Logical Structure:

The author uses a cause-and-effect chain: rising income causes more meat consumption, which requires more grain, but since grain production is fixed while demand grows, Gortland must import food to bridge the gap.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the argument takes for granted but doesn't explicitly state. This assumption must be necessary for the conclusion to be valid.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific claims about consumption patterns (meat consumption rising toward world average), production constraints (domestic grain production will not increase), and resource conversion ratios (several pounds of grain per pound of meat).

Strategy

To find assumptions, we need to identify gaps in the logical chain. The argument jumps from 'rising meat consumption + fixed grain production + grain-to-meat conversion' directly to 'must import grain or meat.' We should look for unstated conditions that must be true for this conclusion to follow, such as assumptions about population, efficiency, or alternative solutions.

Answer Choices Explained

The total acreage devoted to grain production in Gortland will not decrease substantially.

This isn't necessary because the argument already states that 'domestic grain production will not increase.' Whether this is due to acreage limitations or other factors doesn't matter - the argument takes fixed production as a given premise, not an assumption.

The population of Gortland has remained relatively constant during the country's years of growing prosperity.

This isn't required because the argument focuses on per capita consumption. Even if population changed, the per capita trends described (rising income leading to more meat consumption) would still create the same supply-demand mismatch that forces imports.

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

This contradicts what we'd expect and isn't necessary. The argument is about average per capita consumption rising as average income rises. Different consumption levels across income groups doesn't undermine this trend or the conclusion.

In Gortland, neither meat nor grain is subject to government price controls.

Price controls don't affect the core logic about production constraints and consumption patterns. Even with price controls, if domestic production can't meet rising demand, imports would still be necessary.

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

This is the necessary assumption. The argument moves from 'more meat consumption requires more grain for production' to 'must import food.' But if people drastically cut their direct grain consumption (breads, cereals) while eating more meat, this could potentially offset the extra grain needed for meat production. The argument assumes people maintain their grain consumption while adding meat - without this assumption, the conclusion about needing imports might not follow.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...