BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

High tariff

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

High tariff

by selango » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:51 am
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff was lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A) Some of the byproducts of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

B) Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C) More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

D) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

OA E
--Anand--
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 1:06 am

by alwaysabhi » Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:06 am
E is correct
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:29 pm
E
selango wrote:Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff was lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A) Some of the byproducts of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

B) Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C) More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

D) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

OA E
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:32 pm
Why do you guys simply type in the single letter answer in response, especially when the OA is already included?
Last edited by uwhusky on Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:35 pm
What is selango's question? does he need an explanation for each and every option?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:36 pm
Yes always please explain your answers so that others can understand and validate ur reasons.Its not simply typing the correct option.
--Anand--
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:36 pm
So you think he's posting the question and OA to confirm if the OA is correct?

I just don't understand how it is contributing to the person posting the question when you post only the answer.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:11 pm
It will be good if the person puts his doubt clearly.
Sometimes some of the choices are clearly wrong, so no need to waste the time there.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:05 am
Thanked: 7 times

by dinesh19aug » Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:19 pm
What is wrong with answer choice C.
Conclusion: If traiff is removed people will sell unprocessed nuts ---> Govt efforts will fail as employment in urban areas depends on processing units. So it means that the processing unit will shut down and youths will be unemployed.

We need to find a way to show that even if the units are, it will not reduce employment at all or affect very little.

C states that - "More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them. " If there are less people in processing compared to farming then govt plan opening the market will not affect them much.

Any ideas??
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:15 am
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Thanked: 3 times

by neha.patni » Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:24 pm
dinesh19aug wrote:What is wrong with answer choice C.
Conclusion: If traiff is removed people will sell unprocessed nuts ---> Govt efforts will fail as employment in urban areas depends on processing units. So it means that the processing unit will shut down and youths will be unemployed.

We need to find a way to show that even if the units are, it will not reduce employment at all or affect very little.

C states that - "More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them. " If there are less people in processing compared to farming then govt plan opening the market will not affect them much.

Any ideas??
IMO E completed in 1 min 31 sec

The argument centers on the idea that if the government lifts the tariffs on the export, it would hamper government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment. Now we can weaken this by stating that the measure taken to reduce the unemployment is not achieving its goal.

A - it does not affect the conclusion, because the by products are produced any way.
B - out of scope.
C - the conclusion focusses on urban unemployement
D - This strengthens the argument
E - But if the high tariff on the export of cashew nuts is forcing the farmers to leave their lands and move to cities - this leads to increase in number of unemplyed urban population - the effort of the government to reduce urban unemployment is in vain
Last edited by neha.patni on Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:05 am
Thanked: 7 times

by dinesh19aug » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:50 am
neha.patni wrote:
dinesh19aug wrote:What is wrong with answer choice C.
Conclusion: If traiff is removed people will sell unprocessed nuts ---> Govt efforts will fail as employment in urban areas depends on processing units. So it means that the processing unit will shut down and youths will be unemployed.

We need to find a way to show that even if the units are, it will not reduce employment at all or affect very little.

C states that - "More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them. " If there are less people in processing compared to farming then govt plan opening the market will not affect them much.

Any ideas??
IMO E completed in 1 min 31 sec

The argument centers on the idea that if the government lifts the tariffs on the export, it would hamper government's efforts to reduce urban employment. Now we can weaken this by stating that the measure taken to reduce the unemployment is not achieving its goal.

A - it does not affect the conclusion, because the by products are produced any way.
B - out of scope.
C - the conclusion focusses on urban unemployement
D - This strengthens the argument
E - But if the high tariff on the export of cashew nuts is forcing the farmers to leave their lands and move to cities - this leads to increase in number of unemplyed urban population - the effort of the government to reduce urban employment is in vain

Thanks Neha. I know now why C is wrong.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1