- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:16 pm
#36430
Compete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (E)
As with all Method-Argument Part questions, you must be able to identify the logical components of
the argument:
Premise: Over the past several years, increases in worldwide grain production
have virtually ceased.
Sub-conclusion: Further increases will be extremely diffi cult to achieve;
Premise: most usable farmland is already being farmed with near-maximal
effi ciency.
Premise: But worldwide demand for grain has been increasing steadily, due
largely to continuing population growth.
Main Conclusion: Hence, a severe worldwide grain shortage is likely.
The agricultural economist concludes that a worldwide grain-shortage is likely, and supports that
by claiming that, while demand for grain is increasing, it will be diffi cult to signifi cantly increase
production of grain.
Note that in a question of this type you do not need to spend a long time thinking about the validity
of the argument. Yes, the stimulus is fl awed in that it does not consider the likelihood of advanced
technologies or the like, but since the question simply asks you to identify the role played by one
of the statements, you only need to know the structure of the argument. In this case, the role is that
of sub-conclusion; that is, the claim follows from a premise and is then used to support the main
conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is a classic Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The fi rst part of this answer—
“It is one of the two conclusions drawn by the agricultural economist”—is an accurate description of
the statement in question. However, since the claim is then used to support the main conclusion, the
remainder of this answer incorrectly describes the statement.
Answer choice (B): This choice might have been attractive, but fails to grasp the correct causal fl ow,
so this choice is wrong. The argument does attempt to justify the claim that future increases would
be diffi cult by mentioning that farmland is almost maximally used already; however, the diffi culty is
offered as a cause of shortage, so the main conclusion uses diffi culty as a cause instead of trying to
explain what causes diffi culty.
Answer choice (C): The claim is a premise, but it is certainly not the only premise.
Answer choice (D): The claim that future increases will be diffi cult to achieve is actually
unsupported by the fi rst sentence, so this response is incorrect. The economist’s intent was to show
that the situation has been present for some time, not to justify the idea that the situation would
continue into the future. In any case, this response totally fails to identify the claim as a premise
supporting the main conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. In the second sentence, the claim is
supported by the information that most available farmland is already being farmed with nearmaximal
effi ciency, so the claim is a conclusion. The claim is also used to support the main
conclusion, so all parts of this answer choice are verifi ed.
Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (E)
As with all Method-Argument Part questions, you must be able to identify the logical components of
the argument:
Premise: Over the past several years, increases in worldwide grain production have virtually ceased. Sub-conclusion: Further increases will be extremely diffi cult to achieve; Premise: most usable farmland is already being farmed with near-maximal effi ciency. Premise: But worldwide demand for grain has been increasing steadily, due largely to continuing population growth. Main Conclusion: Hence, a severe worldwide grain shortage is likely.The agricultural economist concludes that a worldwide grain-shortage is likely, and supports that
by claiming that, while demand for grain is increasing, it will be diffi cult to signifi cantly increase
production of grain.
Note that in a question of this type you do not need to spend a long time thinking about the validity
of the argument. Yes, the stimulus is fl awed in that it does not consider the likelihood of advanced
technologies or the like, but since the question simply asks you to identify the role played by one
of the statements, you only need to know the structure of the argument. In this case, the role is that
of sub-conclusion; that is, the claim follows from a premise and is then used to support the main
conclusion.
Answer choice (A): This is a classic Half Right, Half Wrong answer. The fi rst part of this answer—
“It is one of the two conclusions drawn by the agricultural economist”—is an accurate description of
the statement in question. However, since the claim is then used to support the main conclusion, the
remainder of this answer incorrectly describes the statement.
Answer choice (B): This choice might have been attractive, but fails to grasp the correct causal fl ow,
so this choice is wrong. The argument does attempt to justify the claim that future increases would
be diffi cult by mentioning that farmland is almost maximally used already; however, the diffi culty is
offered as a cause of shortage, so the main conclusion uses diffi culty as a cause instead of trying to
explain what causes diffi culty.
Answer choice (C): The claim is a premise, but it is certainly not the only premise.
Answer choice (D): The claim that future increases will be diffi cult to achieve is actually
unsupported by the fi rst sentence, so this response is incorrect. The economist’s intent was to show
that the situation has been present for some time, not to justify the idea that the situation would
continue into the future. In any case, this response totally fails to identify the claim as a premise
supporting the main conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. In the second sentence, the claim is
supported by the information that most available farmland is already being farmed with nearmaximal
effi ciency, so the claim is a conclusion. The claim is also used to support the main
conclusion, so all parts of this answer choice are verifi ed.