The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The country of Baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. |
|
| However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat |
|
| and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. |
|
| Therefore, since per capita income in Baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, Baurisia is soon to become an importer of grain. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with the current state (self-sufficient), then shows us a trend (more meat consumption), explains why this trend matters (grain-to-meat conversion), and finally predicts what must happen (grain imports) based on future expectations.
Main Conclusion:
Baurisia will soon become a grain importer.
Logical Structure:
The author links rising prosperity to increased meat consumption, then connects meat production to grain demand. Since grain production won't increase but meat demand will (due to rising incomes), the gap must be filled by imports.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would make us less confident that Baurisia will become a grain importer, even though the facts about rising prosperity, meat consumption, and grain-to-meat ratios remain true.
Precision of Claims
The conclusion is very specific: Baurisia will 'soon' become an 'importer of grain' due to rising meat consumption requiring more grain than can be produced domestically. We need to weaken this precise prediction while accepting the given facts about consumption patterns and production ratios.
Strategy
Since this is a weaken question, we need to think of scenarios that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that Baurisia will become a grain importer. The argument assumes that increased meat consumption will necessarily lead to grain imports. We can weaken this by finding ways that Baurisia could handle increased grain demand without importing, or by showing that meat consumption might not continue increasing as expected, or by identifying alternative sources of protein that don't require grain.
When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain. This actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. If people consume more grain directly in addition to eating more meat, this creates even greater grain demand beyond what's needed for meat production. This would make Baurisia even more likely to need grain imports, supporting the conclusion.
The per capita consumption of meat in Baurisia is roughly the same across all income levels. This doesn't weaken the argument because the key point isn't about income distribution but about overall trends. Even if consumption is equal across income levels now, the argument is based on rising prosperity leading to increased meat consumption overall. This choice doesn't address whether total consumption will increase as prosperity grows.
Per capita consumption of meat has not increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat. This is irrelevant to weakening the argument. What happens in other countries doesn't affect Baurisia's own consumption patterns or the logic connecting rising prosperity to increased meat consumption in Baurisia specifically.
It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain. This significantly weakens the argument by providing an alternative solution. The argument concludes that Baurisia must import grain because domestic grain production can't meet the demand created by increased meat consumption. However, if importing meat is more economical than importing grain, Baurisia could simply import meat directly instead of importing grain to produce meat domestically. This breaks the logical chain leading to grain imports.
During Baurisia's years of growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable. This doesn't weaken the argument because the argument focuses on per capita consumption, not total population. Even with stable population, if per capita meat consumption increases due to rising prosperity, total grain demand will still increase, maintaining the logic of the argument.