Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumExplaining Surprising Outcomes

Following a severe regional drought, a state government offered generous subsidies to farmers who switched to planting a newly developed, drought-resistant variety of wheat. This new variety requires exactly half as much irrigation water per acre as traditional wheat. Within a year, over 80%80\% of the region's farmers had switched to the new variety. Yet, surprisingly, the total amount of irrigation water used for agricultural purposes in the region increased significantly during that year.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

  1. The lower operating costs resulting from the new wheat variety enabled farmers to profitably irrigate and cultivate thousands of acres of marginal land that had previously been left fallow.Answer
  2. B
    Although 80%80\% of the farmers switched to the new variety, the remaining 20%20\% who continued using traditional crops operated some of the largest farms in the region.
  3. C
    Following the end of the drought, several large metropolitan areas in the state significantly increased their municipal water consumption.
  4. D
    The new drought-resistant wheat variety matures much faster than traditional wheat, allowing it to be harvested before the hottest and driest months of the summer begin.
  5. E
    The agricultural subsidies provided by the government were distributed based on the total number of acres a farmer owned, rather than the amount of wheat actually harvested.

Answer

The statement explaining that lower operating costs allowed farmers to cultivate thousands of acres of previously fallow land.
The correct answer resolves the paradox by demonstrating that while the rate of water use per acre decreased, the absolute number of acres being irrigated increased massively. Because the crops became much cheaper to grow, farmers used their savings to plant on thousands of additional, previously unfarmed acres. The sheer volume of new land being watered offset the per-acre water savings, leading to a net increase in total agricultural water consumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the apparent discrepancy in the stimulus.
The water required per acre dropped by half for most farmers, yet the total amount of agricultural water used in the region increased.
Understanding the core contradiction is required before evaluating how to resolve it.
2
Analyze the mathematical relationship underlying the facts.
Total Water = (Water per Acre) × (Total Acres). Since Water per Acre decreased, the only way Total Water could increase is if Total Acres increased significantly.
Deconstructing a total quantity into a rate and an absolute number highlights the missing variable.
3
Evaluate the answer choices for a statement that addresses this missing variable.
The correct option reveals that farmers expanded their farming operations by cultivating thousands of previously unused acres.
This introduces the exact structural mechanism needed to overcome the per-acre efficiency and drive up total consumption.

Key Concept

Explaining Surprising Outcomes by distinguishing between a rate (water per acre) and an absolute quantity (total water used).
Rate this question

Topics

Explaining Surprising Outcomes

More questions from this topic