#17 - Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle

[jlam061695]

Why is A the correct answer? It does not necessarily have to be true that two pairs of ostriches are more expensive than a herd of cows and a bull; the start-up costs that make ostrich farming greater could be derived from other sources (like the greater costs of getting ostriches vaccinated, additional dietary supplements, etc.). Am I supposed to only be inferring from what the stimulus is given?

I asked a question about whether "most strongly supported by" question stems mean the same thing as "must be true" questions, and I thought they meant two different things.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there jlam, you have a good point, and I agree that answer A does not have to be true for the very reasons you raised. However, there is an important difference between Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported. We lump them together because they are so similar and are approached in the same basic way, relying solely on the stimulus and rejecting outside info.

The difference is that a Most Strongly Supported answer is one that doesn't have to be true, but is the most likely one of the five answer choices provided. It's the answer that gets the most support, compared to the other answers, even if it isn't absolutely proven by the facts in the stimulus.

It's important to rely on the facts in the stimulus to support your answer, but if it's a Most Strongly Supported you do not have to prove it, just show evidence that it may be true, and make sure you have more evidence for your answer choice than for any of the others.

Good analysis, and great question about an important distinction! Good job.

[Jon Denning]

Let me add to this and note that the stimulus says those things—two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of land—"are enough to begin ostrich farming." So when we talk about start-up costs, that's what we're talking about: those things required to get started.

So including other factors into the start-up costs would be a mistake, as we're told what the costs necessitate (in the same way that we're told what the costs are for cattle: a large herd of cows, one bull, and at least two acres per cow). Could more costs possibly be involved in some circumstances? Of course, but that's not what this is about! This comparison is only concerned with what it takes to begin farming of each type, so when we compare the elements in each and see that one side costs more, we can conclude with confidence that those elements are more expensive (note that the land here isn't a part of the answer, as there is less land for ostriches and yet it still costs more!).

So while this is a Most Strongly Supported and thus allows a bit more wiggle room for the answer, I don't see (A) as pushing the boundaries of what we can confidently assert.

[isoifer]

Can someone please explain why answer choice D is incorrect? Based on the following fact: "...but it can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does," does this not mean that the average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit?

[Alex Bodaken]

isoifer,

Thanks for the question! Let me see if I can help. Here's the issue with answer choice (D): the stimulus indicates that ostrich farms "can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does," but it does not say that every, or even most, ostrich farms do so. That's a problem, because answer choice (D) says: "The average ostrich farm generates almost five times as much profit as the average cattle ranch." But we don't know that the average ostrich farm does this; we only know that some ostrich farms can do this. Think of it this way: let's say there are 10 ostrich farms at 10 cattle raches, and the ostrich farms can generate 5 times more profit. Each cattle ranch generates $1, which means that each ostrich farm can generate up to $5. But they don't all have to...so lets say that 1 ostrich farm brings in $5, but the others all bring in $1. Does the average ostrich farm now bring in 5 times the average cattle ranch? It doesn't...the average ostrich farm brings in $1.4, while the average cattle ranch brings in $1. Not a difference of a multiple of five. In other words,just because an ostrich farm can bring in up to 5 times as much as a cattle ranch doesn't mean it will...and that is the issue with answer choice (D).

Hope that helps!
Alex

[lanereuden]

I picked A only after barely eliminating E.
I thought E was wrong because just because it costs more does not mean in any way we can infer about profits, because revenue is another side of the coin that we do not know about other than its potential (which for all we know could be that during the first year, a farmer is capable of 5x herd/bull mix)

If A were not present however I would have picked E.

Thoughts?
I chose A mainly because I noticed that even tho each cow got its own piece of land, the start up costs were nonetheless higher for ostrich situation, which indicated to me, since land was out of the picture, and is on equal cost ground to the other assumedly, that what’s creating this discrepancy is the ostriches themselves. That’s why I chose A.
Thoughts?

[ShannonOh22]

The difference is that a Most Strongly Supported answer is one that doesn't have to be true, but is the most likely one of the five answer choices provided. It's the answer that gets the most support, compared to the other answers, even if it isn't absolutely proven by the facts in the stimulus.

It's important to rely on the facts in the stimulus to support your answer, but if it's a Most Strongly Supported you do not have to prove it, just show evidence that it may be true, and make sure you have more evidence for your answer choice than for any of the others.

Based on the explanation above, can you please elaborate on why D would not fall under the umbrella of "most strongly supported"? Wouldn't the last sentence in the stimulus "The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater, but it can eventually bring in as much as five times what cattle ranching does" automatically imply the author is talking about ostrich farms in general (in other words, on average), versus cattle ranching in general?

Is the problem with D in the specific verb usage? i.e. the definitive "generates" versus "can generate"?

I chose A, but was between A and D and want to make sure I fully understand why D is incorrect.

Thank you!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Shannon! Nice job narrowing it down to answer choice (A) in the end.

You are correct that the trouble with (D) comes from the specific words used in the last sentence of the stimulus. The phrases "can...bring in" and "as much as" strongly suggest that that's the maximum, not the average, profit that an ostrich farm can bring in. For example, let's say I boasted, "I can eat as many as 7 hot dogs a minute"! I am certainly not saying that every minute of the day I eat an average of seven hot dogs; rather, that's the most I can eat in a minute. Similarly, the words in the last sentence of the stimulus do not suggest that 5 times is the average; in fact they strongly suggest that it's the maximum. If the last sentence said something like, "The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater, but it eventually brings in five times what cattle ranching does," then I think answer choice (D) would start looking a lot better. Hope that helps!

[lanereuden]

So the reason I am writing is to see if someone can answer my prior post, which is in quotes, which I have reposted below. The second reason I am writing is to add to my prior post

"I picked A only after barely eliminating E.
I thought E was wrong because just because it costs more does not mean in any way we can infer about profits, because revenue is another side of the coin that we do not know about other than its potential (which for all we know could be that during the first year, a farmer is capable of 5x herd/bull mix)


If A were not present however I would have picked E.


Thoughts?
I chose A mainly because I noticed that even though each cow got its own piece of land, the start up costs were nonetheless higher for ostrich situation, which indicated to me, since land was out of the picture, and is on equal cost ground to the other assumedly, that what’s creating this discrepancy is the ostriches themselves. That’s why I chose A.
Thoughts? I suppose one other lingering thought with A is the two-fold fact pattern: two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of land, and in the other case: large herd of cows, one bull, and at least two acres per cow."

Okay, now here is my second point/question:


The OP of this thread started out by making a good point:
"It does not necessarily have to be true that two pairs of ostriches are more expensive than a herd of cows and a bull; the start-up costs that make ostrich farming greater could be derived from other sources"
The sources she gave as an examples were not exactly right, but I feel like she was on the right track in her thinking because if you think about, there another sources, i.e. land.
So what are your thoughts PowerScore?


Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there lanereuden, here are my thoughts on answer E: it is 100% wrong because it has absolutely no support from the stimulus, and even in the absence of answer A it could not possibly be the correct answer. There is no evidence in the stimulus about whether even one ostrich farmer ever loses money, let alone that ostrich farmers typically do so in their first year. This answer is completely lacking in support and depends entirely on making assumptions outside the scope of the stimulus. It must be rejected.

Take a look at Jon's addendum to my earlier post in this thread - he makes a great point about start-up costs. The stimulus actually tells us that two pairs of ostriches and an acre of land are enough to get started. In other words, you don't need anything else to start up! You don't need veterinary care, or ostrich feed, or supplements, or special equipment. Just two pairs plus one acre of the right kind of land, and you're on your way. That's sufficient. And the land can't cost more for ostrich farming than for cattle ranching, because it's defined in the stimulus as "similar" land. A big cost difference could only be true if the land was not similar.

So, you are buying one acre vs many acres of the same kind of land, which should mean lower land costs for ostrich farmers. But your total costs are higher. That can only be due to the four ostriches costing more than the bull and cows!

One more minor note: the stimulus isn't saying that each cow has its own patch of land. It's just a multiplier - for every cow you have you need two acres. Got 10 cows? You need a 20-acre spread. The cows might roam all over it, sharing all the land, but you need to do that multiplication.