Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the statement above?

A climatic disaster in Arkansas state is the reason for a poor rice yield season in the state, and this results in higher prices for a bag of rice. Rice prices in other states will rise as well, whether or not those states are net importers of rice.

Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the statement above?

  1. Agricultural commodities companies in states that are not net importers of rice are excluded from the national rice market when there is a disruption in the national rice supply.
  2. National rice supply disruptions have little, if any, effect on the price of local rice as long as the locality is in a state that is not a net importer of rice.
  3. The rice market in any state is part of the national rice market even if most of the rice consumed in the state is produced in the state.
  4. Poor yield seasons come at predictable regular intervals.
  5. Higher prices for rice tend to lead to increased prices for livestock, which rely on rice feed.


Summary of the argument: Decrease in the crop yield in the state has resulted in  increase in prices in other states as well, the conclusion for the argument will provide clear reasoning for the same.

  1. The information about the agricultural commodities is out of scope for the argument. Hence eliminated.
  2. This answer choice is the complete opposite of the required conclusion. Hence eliminated.
  3. Decrease in rice yield in one state affects the national rice market, which in turn increases the prices in other states. Hence, this is the right answer.
  4. The argument is about the increase in the price. Hence eliminated.
  5. The information about the price for the livestock is irrelevant for the argument. Hence eliminated.

Talk to an expert?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.