Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in Ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the plan's chances for success?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. |
|
| By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. |
|
| Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in Ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead |
|
| thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument flows from market conditions (cotton prices up, soybean prices stable) to a farming decision (switch crops) to an expected outcome (higher profits). It builds a logical case for why the switch makes economic sense.
Main Conclusion:
Soybean growers in Ortovia can significantly increase their income by switching to cotton farming over the next several years.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses economic evidence (high cotton prices vs stable soybean prices) plus a biological fact (cotton matures quickly) to support why crop switching will lead to higher farmer incomes. The logic assumes that current market conditions will continue and that the transition will be smooth.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce belief in the conclusion that Ortovian soybean farmers will significantly increase their income by switching to cotton over the next several years
Precision of Claims
The conclusion makes specific claims about: (1) significant income increase, (2) timeframe of 'next several years', (3) success of the plan to switch from soybeans to cotton. The argument assumes cotton's high prices will continue and that farmers can successfully grow cotton in Ortovia
Strategy
Look for scenarios that attack key assumptions in the farmers' plan. We need to find reasons why switching to cotton might not lead to significantly higher income over several years. This could involve: problems with growing cotton in Ortovia specifically, issues with the sustainability of high cotton prices, or costs/challenges of switching crops that weren't considered
This actually strengthens the farmers' plan rather than weakening it. If soybean costs are rising significantly and expected to continue climbing, this makes staying with soybeans even less profitable. The farmers would be escaping rising costs by switching to cotton, making their plan more attractive, not less. This doesn't weaken their chances for success.
This is the correct weakening answer. The farmers' plan depends entirely on cotton prices staying high due to insect infestations. If an effective, inexpensive pesticide eliminates these infestations, cotton production worldwide will surge as farmers use this pesticide to restore their crops. This massive increase in cotton supply will drive prices down, destroying the profit advantage that motivated the switch. The Ortovian farmers would find themselves growing cotton just as prices crash.
This doesn't significantly impact the farmers' plan. The argument states that prices have increased dramatically due to supply problems (infestations), not demand increases. Even with stable demand, if supply remains constrained by pest problems, prices can stay high. The lack of demand increase doesn't weaken the plan since the price advantage comes from supply-side issues.
This has limited impact on the farmers' plan. Consumer willingness to pay doesn't immediately affect the farmers' income over the 'next several years' timeframe mentioned in the argument. Market prices are already established, and consumers are currently paying these higher prices. Consumer resistance might eventually affect demand, but this is too indirect and long-term to seriously weaken the immediate plan.
This is completely irrelevant to weakening the farmers' plan. The fact that insects don't attack soybeans doesn't matter since the farmers are planning to abandon soybean production anyway. This information about insect behavior regarding soybeans has no bearing on whether switching to cotton will be profitable. It neither helps nor hurts their cotton-growing plan.