Because of a rare type of fungus that killed off many cacao trees in Brazil, there was an unusually meager harvest of cacao beans this year. The wholesale price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter has increased significantly and is unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future. As a result, the retail price of chocolate is certain to increase within six months.
The answer to which of the following questions would provide information relevant to evaluating the argument above?
Has the price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter remained steady during other periods of poor harvest?
Are consumers willing to spend more for chocolate?
Have the prices of other ingredients in chocolate decreased recently?
What percentage of cacao trees in Brazil were affected by the fungus?
Can the fungus be eliminated within the next six months?
OA C
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
cacao trees
This topic has expert replies
-
kaulnikhil
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:49 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
stephen@knewton
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:42 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Thanked: 14 times
- Followed by:4 members
Vivek,
Thanks for posting this. Relevance questions can be very tricky. As with any CR question, I recommend unpacking the stimulus before you do anything else. Once you know how the argument is formed, you'll be much better able to see what is relevant to it.
Evidence:
1) Rare F killed trees --> unusually meager harvest of cacao
(Note that I'm using the arrow to indicate causality, not "if/then")
2) Wholesale $ of solids/butter is up, unlikely to fall.
Understanding that this is EVIDENCE and cannot be disputed is the key to this problem!
Conclusion: This will cause the retail price of chocolate to increase.
Note that this conclusion is descriptive and relates to future events, and also that it includes a claim about causality: that the increased price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter will cause an increase in the price of chocolate.
Now, if we were to identify some assumptions that are being made here, the most obvious would be this:
Assumption: An increase in the price of one ingredient can impact the retail price of chocolate.
(But try coming up with your own first ... I'm loving this "spoiler" feature, so mouse-over the black bar to reveal my answer!)
Now let's have a look at the answer choices. I like to make sure that I know why all the wrong answers are wrong ... as my students hear me repeat like a broken record, that's the best way to get good at spotting the RIGHT one. So ... does one of them support or refute the assumption?
(A) Has the price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter remained steady during other periods of poor harvest?
It actually doesn't matter what has happened to those prices in the past. We're being told that the price is up, and is unlikely to fall. We have to trust that information!
(B) Are consumers willing to spend more for chocolate?
Ok, sure ... if we've taken a bit of microeconomics, we might know that demand can also impact prices. But this does nothing to address the CAUSALITY that is predicted by the argument. We're talking about the price of ingredients impacting retail prices, that's all!
(C) Have the prices of other ingredients in chocolate decreased recently?
RELEVANT! This information directly impacts the assumption an increase in the price of one ingredient in chocolate can increase the retail price of chocolate!
(D) What percentage of cacao trees in Brazil were affected by the fungus?
The specifics of what caused the increased price of solids and butter do not concern us ... we're told that those raw materials are more expensive as a result of the fungus, and we're not allowed to argue with the evidence!
(E) Can the fungus be eliminated within the next six months?
Eliminating the fungus might impact future harvests, but this argument is about the current crop!
Hope this helps!
Cheers, Steve P.
Thanks for posting this. Relevance questions can be very tricky. As with any CR question, I recommend unpacking the stimulus before you do anything else. Once you know how the argument is formed, you'll be much better able to see what is relevant to it.
Evidence:
1) Rare F killed trees --> unusually meager harvest of cacao
(Note that I'm using the arrow to indicate causality, not "if/then")
2) Wholesale $ of solids/butter is up, unlikely to fall.
Understanding that this is EVIDENCE and cannot be disputed is the key to this problem!
Conclusion: This will cause the retail price of chocolate to increase.
Note that this conclusion is descriptive and relates to future events, and also that it includes a claim about causality: that the increased price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter will cause an increase in the price of chocolate.
Now, if we were to identify some assumptions that are being made here, the most obvious would be this:
Assumption: An increase in the price of one ingredient can impact the retail price of chocolate.
(But try coming up with your own first ... I'm loving this "spoiler" feature, so mouse-over the black bar to reveal my answer!)
Now let's have a look at the answer choices. I like to make sure that I know why all the wrong answers are wrong ... as my students hear me repeat like a broken record, that's the best way to get good at spotting the RIGHT one. So ... does one of them support or refute the assumption?
(A) Has the price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter remained steady during other periods of poor harvest?
It actually doesn't matter what has happened to those prices in the past. We're being told that the price is up, and is unlikely to fall. We have to trust that information!
(B) Are consumers willing to spend more for chocolate?
Ok, sure ... if we've taken a bit of microeconomics, we might know that demand can also impact prices. But this does nothing to address the CAUSALITY that is predicted by the argument. We're talking about the price of ingredients impacting retail prices, that's all!
(C) Have the prices of other ingredients in chocolate decreased recently?
RELEVANT! This information directly impacts the assumption an increase in the price of one ingredient in chocolate can increase the retail price of chocolate!
(D) What percentage of cacao trees in Brazil were affected by the fungus?
The specifics of what caused the increased price of solids and butter do not concern us ... we're told that those raw materials are more expensive as a result of the fungus, and we're not allowed to argue with the evidence!
(E) Can the fungus be eliminated within the next six months?
Eliminating the fungus might impact future harvests, but this argument is about the current crop!
Hope this helps!
Cheers, Steve P.
Stephen
GMAT Instructor
Knewton Inc.
GMAT Instructor
Knewton Inc.
-
tanviet
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:2 members
Testluv say to me many time in this forum that
answer choices which contradict evidence is wrong of course
this problem test us contradiction of evidence
A and D are contradiction of evidence and so are wrong though attractive
answer choices which contradict evidence is wrong of course
this problem test us contradiction of evidence
A and D are contradiction of evidence and so are wrong though attractive
How are A and D contradicting the evidence?duongthang wrote:Testluv say to me many time in this forum that
answer choices which contradict evidence is wrong of course
this problem test us contradiction of evidence
A and D are contradiction of evidence and so are wrong though attractive
The GMAT is indeed adaptable. Whenever I answer RC, it proficiently 'adapts' itself to mark my 'right' answer 'wrong'.
