If the Nilometer reading in a given year was significantly lower than that of the previous year, what logical conclusion would the Egyptian bureaucracy arrive at?

Question

Option 1: The quantum of arable land would remain unchanged that year.

Option 2: Food reserves would need to be managed strictly to prevent famine.

Option 3: They should immediately increase the volume of grain exports.

Option 4: Tax revenues for the coming year would likely increase.

AfterBoards · Accepted Answer

From passage: "If the flood reached 'X' height, you would have an abundance of grain; if it reached 'Y', you faced famine."

Thought Process Breakdown: The question asks what a much lower Nilometer reading would imply. -> Lower flood level means less water. -> Less water means poorer harvest. -> Poorer harvest means famine risk. So, the bureaucracy would manage food reserves carefully. Option 1 says arable land stays unchanged, which ignores the flood-yield link. Option 3 says increase exports, which is dangerous during shortage. Option 4 says tax revenue would increase, but lower yield suggests the opposite. Option 2 follows the logic correctly.

Option Analysis: 🔴 Option 1 -> Opposite Logic -> Flood level affects fertile land and yield. 🟢 Option 2 -> Correct -> Lower readings signal famine risk, so food reserves must be managed. 🔴 Option 3 -> Opposite Action -> Exporting more grain during shortage would worsen famine risk. 🔴 Option 4 -> Opposite Logic -> Lower yield would likely reduce, not increase, tax revenue.

IPMAT Indore (VA) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts