Baurisia's problem is indeed my problem!

[ashish.jere]

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 likely to become an importer of grain.

Which of the following, most seriously weakens the argument?

1) When people increase their consumption of meat, they also tend to increase their consumption of grain.

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

3) Per capita consumption of meat has increased substantially in recent years in those countries from which Baurisia is likely to import meat.

4) It is more economical for Baurisians to import meat than grain.

5) During Baurisia's growing prosperity, the country's population has remained relatively stable.

[supratims]

I think its 2).
The argument assumes that the reason for increase in per capita meat consumption is because of increase in prosperity - "However, with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat".
So any statement that states that meat consumption doesnot depend on income levels will weaken this. Clearly 2) satisfies this.

Can we have the official answer for this ?

[RonPurewal]

nah. it should be #4.

the passage basically boils down to this: "baurisia is going to have to start importing either grain or meat."
the passage then concludes, pretty much randomly, that baurisia is going to have to import grain in particular.

if they can import meat instead - and more economically, at that - then that's what they'll do.

--

#2 is irrelevant because the pinching force on the economy is the rising consumption of meat across the country as a whole.
it doesn't actually matter which income levels are consuming the meat; all that matters is that the country as a whole is consuming more meat.

[as2764]

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 likely to become an importer of grain.

isn't it erroneous to state that per capita income is certain to rise, when we're talking about rise in per capita consumption? i realize that prosperity implies increase in income, etc. but the argument is about increase in meat consumption, so shouldn't the last sentence be 'since per capita consumption of meat ... '?

[RonPurewal]

isn't it erroneous to state that per capita income is certain to rise, when we're talking about rise in per capita consumption? i realize that prosperity implies increase in income, etc. but the argument is about increase in meat consumption, so shouldn't the last sentence be 'since per capita consumption of meat ... '?

this is a strengthen/weaken question; strengthen/weaken problems are *NOT* about formal logic. in general, strengthen/weaken problems will require you to make common-sense assumptions and/or interpret sentences in the most probable way.
the passage states:
with growing prosperity in Baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat
i.e., a rise in per capita income predicts more meat consumption. therefore, the most probable interpretation of a further rise in per capita income is that it will bring a concomitant, further rise in meat consumption.

--

if you're thinking about things like "[logically] erroneous" when you look at S/W problems, you'll be able to solve very, very few of them; S/W is about seeing the "big picture" of the argument, not about nitpicking at small points (although nitpicking at small points is the whole point of other problem types, such as inference/conclusion questions).

[as2764]

if you're thinking about things like "[logically] erroneous" when you look at S/W problems, you'll be able to solve very, very few of them; S/W is about seeing the "big picture" of the argument, not about nitpicking at small points (although nitpicking at small points is the whole point of other problem types, such as inference/conclusion questions).

i was kinda cautious here, because i didn't want to end up selecting a choice that when read would make my mind ask, "but the stimulus didn't say so?".

there could be other interpretations of 'prosperity', but those interpretations maybe ridiculous? i see your point now, thanks!

[jnelson0612]

Great!

[visitdhiraj]

What is the error with choice C

Choice D only says that its economical, but what about the availability

Regards

Dheeraj

[jlucero]

What is the error with choice C

Choice D only says that its economical, but what about the availability

Regards

Dheeraj

C doesn't matter. Whether or not other countries are eating more meat doesn't mean they won't be able to import meat from them.

The question prompt doesn't say: Which of the following completely destroys the argument. It says which one most seriously weakens the argument. D does that. Are there other possible factors? Yes. But if I told you that it's more economical to buy apples or oranges for my lunch, you wouldn't respond "are there even any apples where you live????"

[harika.apu]

What is the error with choice C

Choice D only says that its economical, but what about the availability

Regards

Dheeraj

C doesn't matter. Whether or not other countries are eating more meat doesn't mean they won't be able to import meat from them.

The question prompt doesn't say: Which of the following completely destroys the argument. It says which one most seriously weakens the argument. D does that. Are there other possible factors? Yes. But if I told you that it's more economical to buy apples or oranges for my lunch, you wouldn't respond "are there even any apples where you live????"

Hello Joe,
I thought C provides another reason why Baurisia should import grain rather than meat ,because the countries which are likely to provide meat for Baurisia are themselves people who have increased meat consumption substantially.
Am i right ?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

that choice could have an impact on the argument, but only if you make certain assumptions.
e.g., according to the usual workings of supply and demand, that trend could drive up the price of imported meat—thus tilting the scales toward importing grain instead.

HOWEVER... there's no reason to think this much.

in this question, you want something that WEAKENS the argument. thus there are only two meaningful kinds of answer choices:

EITHER
1/ something that WEAKENS the argument (= makes it seem LESS likely that the country will import grain)

OR
2/ something that DOES NOT WEAKEN the argument.

in particular, it's a waste of your time to quibble over the difference between 'strengthen' and 'do nothing' here.
'strengthen' is #2. 'do nothing' is ... also #2. so we don't care.

[RonPurewal]

the point ^^ is that it should be VERY clear that choice C does not weaken the argument. (it does not give us any reason to DOUBT that the country will have to import grain, as a 'weakener' would have to.)

so... eliminate.

do not spend ANY time wondering whether choice C actually strengthens the argument, because that doesn't matter.