#17 - Ostrich farming requires far less acreage than cattle

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

In addition to all of the previous discussion related to answer (D), it also seems to me that this answer conflates profit with revenue. I interpreted the final clause of the concluding sentence to refer to revenue, rather than profit. Just because the ostrich farm can eventually "bring in" as much as five times what cattle ranching does does not necessarily mean that the profit is nearly five times as great. The stimulus provides no information about the expenditures of ostrich and cattle farms, so it seems difficult to make any kind of judgement about profits here. I recognize, though, that the meaning of the final clause is a bit ambiguous (as it could refer to either profits or revenue), but this ambiguity seemed sufficient to eliminate D. Does this reasoning hold? Thanks so much.

[Adam Tyson]

I'm with you, Kelly - what a business "brings in" is revenue, not profit. This stimulus tells us absolutely nothing about profit - zero, zip, nada. That kills answer D. Good work!

[queenbee]

Hi
I didn't chose A because what about the cost of land? for the cattle ranchers, they needed at least 2 acres per cow (large herd of cows no less). for the ostrich farmers, they needed only one acre for 2 birds. The stimulus even states that far less land is needed. Are we supposed to infer that because they say that the start up costs are greater that it is only related to the cost of the animals?

large herd of cows + 1 buffalo + lots of land < 2 birds and 1 acre?

Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

The stimulus states that the start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater. Certainly not the land costs - ostriches require less land, like you said. So how can the start-up costs be greater? The non-land element is the only thing left to be more expensive. This is simply what answer choice (A) says.

Robert Carroll