Hardin argued that grazing land held in common (that is, open to any user) would always be used less carefully...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Paradox

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Hardin argued that grazing land held in common (that is, open to any user) would always be used less carefully than private grazing land. Each rancher would be tempted to overuse common land because the benefits would accrue to the individuals, while the costs of reduced land quality that results from overuse would be spread among all users. But a study comparing 217 million acres of common grazing land with 433 million acres of private grazing land showed that the common land was in better condition.

Which of the following, if true and known by the ranchers, would best help explain the results of the study?

With private grazing land, both the costs and benefits of overuse fall to the individual user.

The cost in reduced land quality that is attributable to any individual user is less easily measured with common land than it is with private land.

An individual who overuses common grazing land might be able to achieve higher returns than other users can, with the result that he or she would obtain a competitive advantage.

If one user of common land overuses it even slightly, the other users are likely to do so even more, with the consequence that the costs to each user outweigh the benefits.

There are more acres of grazing land held privately than there are held in common.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Hardin argued that grazing land held in common (that is, open to any user) would always be used less carefully than private grazing land.	What it says: Hardin believes shared grazing land gets treated worse than privately owned land What it does: Sets up the initial theory we're going to examine What it is: Hardin's theoretical claim
Each rancher would be tempted to overuse common land because the benefits would accrue to the individuals, while the costs of reduced land quality that results from overuse would be spread among all users.	What it says: Ranchers will overuse shared land since they get all the benefits but share the costs with everyone What it does: Explains the reasoning behind Hardin's theory from the previous statement What it is: Supporting logic for Hardin's argument Visualization: Rancher gets 100% of benefits from overusing land, but only pays 20% of the damage costs (if 5 ranchers share)
But a study comparing 217 million acres of common grazing land with 433 million acres of private grazing land showed that the common land was in better condition.	What it says: Real-world study found shared land was actually in better shape than private land What it does: Directly contradicts Hardin's theory with actual evidence What it is: Study findings that challenge the theory Visualization: Common land: 217M acres in good condition vs Private land: 433M acres in worse condition

Argument Flow:

The passage starts with Hardin's theory that shared land gets worse treatment, explains why this should happen, then hits us with study results that completely contradict this expectation.

Main Conclusion:

There's no single main conclusion here - instead, we have a puzzle where real-world evidence contradicts established theory.

Logical Structure:

This creates a classic 'theory vs. reality' conflict that needs explanation. The study results create a paradox that the question will ask us to resolve.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Paradox - This question asks us to explain why the study results contradict Hardin's theory. We need to find information that would reconcile the contradiction between the theory (common land should be in worse condition) and the reality (common land was actually in better condition).

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve quality comparisons - common grazing land was found to be in 'better condition' than private land, which directly contradicts Hardin's prediction that common land would be used 'less carefully' and suffer from overuse.

Strategy

For paradox questions, we need to find information that explains the unexpected result without contradicting the given facts. We must accept that: (1) Hardin's theory predicts common land should be worse, (2) the study definitively showed common land was better, and (3) ranchers knew whatever information we provide. We need scenarios that explain why ranchers might actually take better care of common land than private land, despite the theoretical incentive to overuse it.

Answer Choices Explained

With private grazing land, both the costs and benefits of overuse fall to the individual user.

'With private grazing land, both the costs and benefits of overuse fall to the individual user.' This actually supports Hardin's theory rather than explaining why it failed. If private land users bear all costs and benefits, they should theoretically manage it optimally. This doesn't explain why private land ended up in worse condition than common land in the study.

The cost in reduced land quality that is attributable to any individual user is less easily measured with common land than it is with private land.

'The cost in reduced land quality that is attributable to any individual user is less easily measured with common land than it is with private land.' This would suggest that common land users can't see the damage they're causing, which would lead to MORE overuse, not less. This would make common land worse, not better, so it doesn't resolve our paradox.

An individual who overuses common grazing land might be able to achieve higher returns than other users can, with the result that he or she would obtain a competitive advantage.

'An individual who overuses common grazing land might be able to achieve higher returns than other users can, with the result that he or she would obtain a competitive advantage.' This creates an incentive to overuse common land for competitive advantage, which would make common land condition worse, not better. This deepens the paradox rather than resolving it.

If one user of common land overuses it even slightly, the other users are likely to do so even more, with the consequence that the costs to each user outweigh the benefits.

'If one user of common land overuses it even slightly, the other users are likely to do so even more, with the consequence that the costs to each user outweigh the benefits.' This perfectly explains our paradox! If ranchers know that any overuse triggers escalating overuse by others, creating costs that exceed benefits for everyone, they have strong incentive to be extremely careful with common land. This escalation risk doesn't exist with private land. Knowing this dynamic, ranchers would treat common land more carefully than private land, explaining why common land was found in better condition.

There are more acres of grazing land held privately than there are held in common.

'There are more acres of grazing land held privately than there are held in common.' This is just a quantity comparison that tells us nothing about land management practices or condition. The passage already mentions the acreage amounts, and this doesn't explain why care levels would differ between land types.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...