#8 - Economist: Historically, sunflower seed was one of

[maximbasu]

Hello,
I chose B as the correct answer while the correct answer was D.

I reasoned that since the farming industry was unstable, making it stable would improve the economy with little environmental impact. That is what B states.

D speaks about another crop. I don't understand what relation that has to the stimulus.

Thank you, Maxim.

[Zierra28]

I don't either. I chose E because I ruled out D because the mentioned it benefitting the general economy. How can we be sure improving the farm industry improves the entire economy? Maybe another industry is plummeting simultaneously, making the overall results even. Please help. Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey guys,

Thanks for your questions. The stimulus states that renewed growing of sunflowers in Kalotopia would benefit their farming industry at little cost to the environment. The stem asks us to identify what must be true.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect, because we have no reason to believe that Kalotopia's industry would deteriorate if sunflowers aren't grown there. Growing sunflowers was never introduced as a necessary condition for prosperity.

Answer choice (B): Whether stabilizing the farming industry would improve the economy without damaging the environment is debatable. Maybe if the improvement only involves growing sunflowers - that's possible. But answer choice (B) is a very general statement. It's entirely possible that there are ways of stabilizing their farming industry that are actually detrimental to the environment.

Answer choice (C): This is a hypothetical that cannot be proven with the information provided.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Let me address each of your objections separately:

• Maxim - (D) does not speak about another crop. It speaks about "a crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia." Since sunflower seed matches that description, answer choice (D) represents a claim about a crop that was discussed in the stimulus.
  
  Zierra28 - Your argument is that we cannot deduce with absolute certainty that Kalotopia's general economy is going to improve, because it is possible that another industry would plummet even if farming were to improve. This is a specious hypothetical. We know from the first sentence that sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia, and it's still a major source of income for several countries. These countries no longer include Kalotopia, but it's reasonable to assume that Kalotopia was once among them. Furthermore, the last sentence clearly suggests that growing sunflowers will also provide a variety of other products, both industrial and consumer. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that renewed growing of sunflowers would benefit not only farming, but also the general economy.

Hope this answers your questions!

Thanks,

[Oakenshield]

Now I have known why B is wrong.
But just in case, could you tell me whether "at little cost to environment"="without damaging the environment"? "Little"is really a subtle word to me.

[Jonathan Evans]

Oakenshield,

No, "at little cost to the environment" is not the same as "without damaging the environment."

If you notice extreme language such as "without," "all," "none," "every," "any," etc., you must focus on that term and determine the effect it has on the quantity or probability of whatever it describes. If it makes something absolute, you must note that strong, absolute statements are difficult to support. Choose an answer with this kind of language if and only if it is explicitly supported by information in the stimulus.

In this case, "at little cost" arguably implies some minor cost and in my judgment is necessarily inconsistent with the term "without." If I am mistaken, I would welcome the insight of those more versed in this semantic distinction.

If you will permit me a brief digression, one could make an analogy between the expressions "a few [of something]" versus "few [of something]" and the expressions "a little [of something]" versus "little [of something]," respectively. The former expressions imply the existence of the substance in question; the latter are consistent both with its existence or nonexistence.

[Sambenz]

I got this answer wrong on a timed test. I chose B. I initially eliminated all answer choices, and then was forced to retry, and B seems like the best bet to me.

I found this question difficult because of the ambiguity of the term economy and how it acted almost as a red herring. A, C and E appeared obviously wrong, but B and D both mentioned the term economy and I was unsure how best to relate that to the stimulus, which never mentioned the word economy explicitly. I thought that the correct answer choice was the one that best paraphrased the stimulus's version of economy.

The reason is ended up not choosing D was because I felt that D was too broad and out of scope. It appeared to speak in terms that were too general. Does the stimulus really support that "A crop that was once a large production crop..." It seemed out of focus and not on the same wavelength as the stimulus. Is such a general statement really supported by the stimulus?

Looking back, I see that B miswrote the words of the stimulus. The stimulus never said with "without damaging". But D appears too general.

[Frank Peter]

Hi Sam,

It's always helpful to keep in mind that the instructions say to choose the "best" answer. The problem with (B) is that it speaks in broad terms about stabilizing the farming industry without damaging the environment - that may be true in terms of producing sunflower seeds, but may not be true in all cases, since there may be a lot of ways to stabilize the farming industry, and some approaches may end up hurting the environment. We really don't know, since the stimulus only talked about the effects of producing sunflower seeds.

I can see why you had problems with (D) - it does also appear to be very broadly worded, but it's a fair conclusion to draw from the facts as we're told them in the stimulus. The concept of benefitting the "general economy" may seem like it's going a bit too far, but I think we can find some support for that in the sense that sunflower seeds will yield a variety of products, both industrial and consumer, which suggests the potential for a more general positive economic impact beyond the farming industry.

[TSimmons]

Hi all,

I had some difficulty directly connecting the statements made in answer choice (D) with information given in the stimulus. Sure, we know that a sunflower seed was indeed a large production crop and its re-investment would benefit the economy of Kalotopia, but I was unable to comfortably extend this benefit to another 'crop that was once a large production crop.' There just seemed to be too many complicating variables or hypotheticals, i.e. what if Kaltopia now lacked the capacity or capital to re-produce a production crop, or it changed in such a way that it would no longer be beneficial to the economy? An example might be the country's soil has degraded to the extent where what was a simple and cheap process is now much too costly to replicate. To that end, investing in a crop that was once a large production crop would only provide detriments to the country's farmers, economy, or both.

Is the addition that such a crop is also 'a major source of income for several other countries' enough to answer those worries? Maybe the final statement that such a crop can produce a number of industrial and consumer products is supposed to emphasize economic advantages, but maybe those advantages can only be limited to sunflowers (not all previously productive crop).

Thanks for the help
Toby

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Toby,

This is a most strongly supported question, so it is a little bit less strict than a true Must Be True question.

Remember in these questions that we have to take the words of the stimulus as true. So we accept a few different relevant propositions.

1. Sunflower seed was once a major production crop in Kalotopia
2. Renewed growing of sunflower seed would provide relief to the farming industry
3. Sunflower oil can sustainably provide a variety of products

From number 2, we can get that the sunflowers can currently be grown in Kalotopia, because otherwise the renewed growth of the seed would not provide relief to the farming industry. We can gather that there is a way for it to still be grown in Kalotopia, and that there are seeds available as other countries have recently used it.

From these facts, we can infer answer choice (D).

A crop that was once a large production crop=Sunflower seed. We know it can grow there again. We know if we grow it again it could revitalize the economy.

Hope that helps!