Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
A new machine for harvesting corn will allow rows to be planted only fifteen inches apart, instead of the usual thirty inches. Corn planted this closely will produce lower yields per plant. Nevertheless, the new machine will allow corn growers to double their profits per acre because __________.
with the closer spacing of the rows, the growing corn plants will quickly form a dense canopy of leaves, which will, by shading the ground, minimize the need for costly weed control and irrigation
with the closer spacing of the rows, corn plants will be forced to grow taller because of increased competition for sunlight from neighboring corn plants
with the larger number of plants growing per acre, more fertilizer will be required
with the spacing between rows cut by half, the number of plants grown per acre will almost double
with the closer spacing of the rows, the acreage on which corn is planted will be utilized much more intensively than it was before, requiring more frequent fallow years in which corn fields are left unplanted
不得不说GMAT太严谨了,D、almost
A说收入端有减少的因子(不保证一定收入一定减少),无论收入端和原来相比是否有变化,只要成本降低,页一定利润增长。
D说收入端有另外一个因素可以增长近2倍,等等,近2倍和降低的因素乘积在价格不变的情况下也不会超过原来收入的两倍,要实现利润2倍增长,成本还是要降低,
所以选A
是不是用排除法,只有A有double profit的可能性?
A说这种种植方法可以降低成本,但也没有量化说能降低多少呀?怎么能推出利润double呢?
【因果推理】
因:玉米种植近了&产出比减少
果:然而,利润double了
因CQ1-因果有联系,虽然近了,但是有一个他因导致了利润增长。
**我在反思如果自己误认为【果因】,将从“他因”找,会对A进行误判,可能会选择B。但显然不符合logic flow即先有Premise后有Conclusion
给结论找原因,结论是 double their profits per acre ,即每亩利润翻一倍;
已知一个前提 Corn will produce lower yields per plant,即每株植物的产量下降;
现在要出一个理由在产量下降的情况下,利润还要翻倍。
A.减少costly的成本,可以实现利润增加;
B.因为题干已经说了产量下降,长高也没用,不能增加利润;
C.增加肥料成本,减少利润
D.每亩产量=每亩植株数*每株植物的产量,每亩植株数将近增加2倍,但是每株植物产量下降,未给出下降多少,如果产量下降一半,则不影响每亩产量,不能使利润翻倍;
E.休耕期增加,减少利润。
经比较A和D两个选项,A选项更优。
错选了D,almost...double, 单产量小于两倍,总数量等于两倍...细节
有说单产量小于2倍吗?
almost的意思不就是说没到两倍,小于等于两倍
感谢分享
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论