Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Conclusions or Inferences

Consider the following statements and the subsequent conclusions.

Statement 1: To address severe groundwater depletion, the state administration has reduced electricity subsidies by 40% for farmers cultivating water-intensive crops.
Statement 2: Concurrently, a direct cash incentive program has been launched specifically for farmers who transition to growing drought-resistant crops like millets.

Conclusion I: The reduction in electricity subsidies will completely eliminate the cultivation of water-intensive crops in the region.
Conclusion II: The state administration's policy aims to promote a shift in agricultural patterns toward less water-dependent farming.

Which of the given conclusions logically follows from the statements?

  1. A
    Only Conclusion I follows
  2. Only Conclusion II followsAnswer
  3. C
    Both Conclusion I and Conclusion II follow
  4. D
    Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows

Answer

Only Conclusion II follows
The correct answer is that only Conclusion II follows. Conclusion II directly synthesizes the two statements: applying a penalty to water-heavy crops and a reward for drought-resistant crops logically infers an administrative goal to shift agricultural patterns. Conclusion I is invalid because it jumps to an extreme absolute ('completely eliminate') that cannot be proven by a mere 40% subsidy reduction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core actions described in the statements.
The government is using a 'stick' (reducing subsidies by 40% for high-water crops) and a 'carrot' (cash incentives for drought-resistant crops).
Understanding the factual premises is required before evaluating any conclusions.
2
Evaluate the logical validity of Conclusion I against the premises.
Conclusion I claims water-intensive crops will be 'completely eliminated'. This is invalid.
A 40% reduction in a subsidy makes cultivation more expensive, but it does not logically dictate that every single farmer will stop growing those crops. Absolute statements require absolute evidence.
3
Evaluate the logical validity of Conclusion II against the premises.
Conclusion II claims the policy aims to promote a shift toward less water-dependent farming. This is valid.
The combination of discouraging water-intensive crops and explicitly rewarding drought-resistant crops (like millets) is the exact definition of promoting an agricultural shift.

Key Concept

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences

More questions from this topic