Need explanation on a LR question. December 2003 (prep 42) Sect 2, #10

[Kantian]

It's a strengthen question about problems of urbanization.

Ok so basically premise is saying there's a lot of folks from rural coming into the city so it's becoming a problem. But then it goes to say instead of solving the problem by stopping flow from rural to urban, they can deal with it by trading goods primarily with the urban population.

C) Then the answer choice says that to strengthen this, we must have that a scarcity of agriculture is most important in urbanization problem.

shouldn't the bold part say "rural" instead to make sense this answer choice?

[Barnum]

Ok, so it appears that your problem is you misunderstood the stimulus.  They didn't just say "trade goods with the urban population"  You oversimplified.  It says that they will trade the goods produced by the urban population to get the agricultural products.  In other words, the argument tells us that we have a problem because too many of our farmers are moving to the cities.  Its solution is rather than try to block the farmers from moving, we'll just trade what the city makes to get the farm products we no longer make.  Granted this assumes that the real problem with farmers moving to city is a loss of agriculture (as opposed to overcrowding).  This is why the answer strengthens the argument.

[Brent Dunn]

One quick note--the way that you have phrased the answer choice is different in significant ways from the way it is stated.
The question is asking for what IF TRUE would provide the most support for the argument.
The question isn't looking for that MUST be true, just what would help the argument the most.
Also, it doesn't say that the scarcity is the MOST important aspect, just that it is a central aspect.
This may seem like quibbling, but those two things can make a huge difference in determining the correct answer.

[testboy]

POE works well here, too:

A) is out of scope: though national planners seem to be part of government, there is nothing about a subsidy in there.

B) is an obvious overbroad, red-flag wrong answer

D) trade imbalances between countries? out of scope

E) the conclusion of the argument is talking about a plan to solve the problem, so the choice that supports this most must be related directly to the conclusion. C) relates perfectly, E) speculates about a policy that will make things worse, which provides no info on a better way to solve the problem, which is the crux of the question.

[River]

If you are a famer and your friend needs to buy more veges due to shortage of veges in the city where he lives, then you either sell your veges in your out door or to urban markets, so you do make more profits from urbanians, then you do not need to go for city life (For more better income?).

Resolved?