Many agriculturally intensive areas of the world are beginning to encounter water scarcity problems. As a result, many farmers in these areas are likely to reduce their output as the water supply they need in order to maintain production shrinks. However, one group of farmers in such a region plans to increase their production by implementing techniques for water conservation.
Which of the following, it true, would most strongly support the prediction that the group’s plan will succeed?
(This question is from Official Guide. Therefore, because of copyrights, the complete question cannot be copied here. The question can be accessed at GMAT Club)
Many agriculturally intensive areas of the world are beginning to encounter water scarcity problems.
What does “agriculturally intensive areas” mean?
Those areas that are intensive in an agricultural sense, i.e., those areas in which there is a lot of agricultural activity.
These areas are beginning to encounter a shortage of water.
As a result, many farmers in these areas are likely to reduce their output as the water supply they need in order to maintain production shrinks.
Because these areas are experiencing a water shortage, many farmers will not get the water supply they need to maintain their existing production level. Thus, they are likely to reduce their output.
However, one group of farmers in such a region plans to increase their production by implementing techniques for water conservation.
“However” indicates a contrast.
There is one group of farmers in one such water-shortage region – this group has a plan to achieve a goal.
The plan: Implement techniques for water conservation
The goal: Increase their production
Please note that the passage presents a bunch of facts; there is no argument and thus no conclusion here.
We’re looking for an option that supports the prediction.
Which prediction?
The prediction that the group’s plan will succeed.
When will the group’s plan succeed?
When it achieves its goal.
The plan is “implementing techniques for water conservation”, and the goal is “increasing their production”.
The group’s plan will succeed when
Implementing techniques for water conservation WILL LEAD to an increase in their production.
Thus, we’re looking for an option that supports the above statement.
(I believe many people don’t spend time to become clear about what EXACTLY the passage gives us and the question asks, just as people don’t spend time simplifying the given information and question in Data Sufficiency questions in quant. However, as you might have already realized, the time spent gaining clarity about what we are looking for significantly increases our clarity level while evaluating the options.)
(A) Incorrect.
Ask yourself whether this option supports “Implementing techniques for water conservation WILL LEAD to increasing their production”.
The answer is No.
This option has ZERO IMPACT on our prediction.
Let’s start with a variation:
(A1) Farmers that can increase their production will be better positioned to control more water resources.
I have replaced the phrase ‘Farmers that can gain a larger share of the food market in their regions’ with the phrase ‘Farmers that can increase their production’.
What impact does this variation have on the prediction?
This variation talks about the situation in which some farmers have already achieved the goal. What happens when the goal has been met is irrelevant. Our concern is whether the plan will lead to the goal.
The original option talks about the situation when some farmers have already increased their production (achieved the goal) or other farmers have reduced their production (another reason for a larger market share). In that case, they perhaps have gained a larger share of the food market.
However, what happens when the goal has been met (or when market share has become larger even for some other reason) is none of our concern.
Our concern is whether our plan will lead to our goal.
(B) Incorrect.
This option has NO IMPACT on our prediction.
Whether the agricultural practices are water intensive (i.e., let’s say they use 100 litres of water per unit of land) or are not water intensive (i.e., let’s say they use 10 litres of water per unit of land) is not relevant. In either case, the plan can work equally effectively – we can conserve, let’s say, 10% water to have scope for 10% more production.
I believe the reason some people mark this option is that they think,
“If the agricultural practices are water intensive, there is a lot of scope of water conservation.”
Perhaps, everything else equal, we can conserve more water from water intensive activities than from activities that are not water intensive.
However, more water thus saved is not expected to result in more production in areas with water intensive agriculture. (vis-a-vis less water in areas with agriculture that is not water intensive)
Why?
Let’s take the same example of 100 litres of water per unit of land in areas with water intensive agriculture (area A, let’s say) and of 10 litres of water per unit of land in areas that do not not have water intensive agriculture* (area B, let’s say).
If you save 10 litres of water in area A, you’ll be able to grow on an additional 0.1 unit of land, and if you save 1 litre of water in area B, you’ll be able to grow on the same additional area of 0.1 units of land.
Thus, more water saved is not equivalent to more production.
So, whether the areas are water intensive or not has no impact on our prediction that implementing techniques for water conservation WILL LEAD to increasing their production.
*Side note: The passage deals with areas that are agriculturally intensive. The agriculture in these areas may or may not be water intensive.
(C) Incorrect.
Option C indicates that the overall supply of agricultural output in the market will not go down.
However, we’re not concerned about the overall supply.
We’re just concerned about the prediction about a specific group of farmers.
(D) Incorrect.
Whether the demand for agricultural products increases, remains the same, declines or even becomes ZERO has NO IMPACT on our prediction. As long as implementing techniques for water conservation leads to an increased production for our farmers, our prediction works. Whether these farmers are able to sell this increased production or not is NONE of our concern.
(E) Correct.
‘Lost to evaporation’ and ‘leakage’ are both bad things. It seems that more than half the water used for agriculture is wasted.
This option indicates that there is a lot of scope for water conservation.
Think about it. If there were no scope for water conservation, would implementing techniques for water conservation lead to water conservation?
No.
In such a case, would we be able to predict an increase in production?
No.
Thus, knowing that there is a lot of scope for water conservation increases the chances that implementing the techniques for water conservation will lead to increased production.
Thus, this option supports our prediction.
Question Veterinarians generally derive some of their income from selling several manufacturers’ lines of pet-care products. Knowing that pet owners rarely throw away mail from
Question Researchers conditioned a group of flies to associate a particular odor with a weak electric shock. Twenty-four and forty-eight hours later the researchers conducted
Question Advertisement: Our competitors’ computer salespeople are paid according to the value of the products they sell, so they have a financial incentive to convince
Learn GMAT the right way – through common sense and logic. There’s no shortcut to a well-deserved success!
© 2021 All rights Reserved.