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

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??

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