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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Kernland imposes a high tariff...

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:14 pm
Thanked: 1 times
by ska7945 » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:51 am
Q15:
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 were 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 by-products 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.
let's beat GMAT.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:04 am
imo:E
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:21 am
IMO E
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:56 am
Thanked: 2 times

by apple100 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:25 am
Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
what is the reasoning behind E?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:52 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by sudeep_ar » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:50 am
apple100 wrote:
Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
what is the reasoning behind E?
Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

how to weaken the above argument?
by Proving:
tariff
=> do not reduce urban unemployment
=> increase the urban unemployment

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
==> Because of tariff, farmers are moving to urban areas and are increasing the unemployment figures of urban areas. hence weakens the argument that tariff are reducing unemployment in urban areas.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:56 am
Thanked: 2 times

by apple100 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:27 am
sudeep_ar wrote:
apple100 wrote:
Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
what is the reasoning behind E?
Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

how to weaken the above argument?
by Proving:
tariff
=> do not reduce urban unemployment
=> increase the urban unemployment

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
==> Because of tariff, farmers are moving to urban areas and are increasing the unemployment figures of urban areas. hence weakens the argument that tariff are reducing unemployment in urban areas.
how can you deduct that bc of the tarrif, the farmers are moving to the city?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:52 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by sudeep_ar » Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:21 am
apple100 wrote:
sudeep_ar wrote:
apple100 wrote:
Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
what is the reasoning behind E?
Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

how to weaken the above argument?
by Proving:
tariff
=> do not reduce urban unemployment
=> increase the urban unemployment

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
==> Because of tariff, farmers are moving to urban areas and are increasing the unemployment figures of urban areas. hence weakens the argument that tariff are reducing unemployment in urban areas.
how can you deduct that bc of the tarrif, the farmers are moving to the city?
Image
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 5 times

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff...

by vinaynp » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:53 am
ska7945 wrote:Q15:
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 were 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 by-products 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.
IMO C by POE

Argument is that removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

A) Additional Information.
B) Out of Scope.
D) Additional Information.
E) This information is not related to tariff.

Now, what if the the processors are very less in urban area and farming is the primary occupation. In that case, urban unemployment won't decrease substantially.

C) hits that point aptly.

OA please.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:14 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by ska7945 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:14 am
oa E
let's beat GMAT.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff...

by rocketsbball » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:43 am
vinaynp wrote:
ska7945 wrote:Q15:
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 were 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 by-products 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.
IMO C by POE

Argument is that removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

A) Additional Information.
B) Out of Scope.
D) Additional Information.
E) This information is not related to tariff.

Now, what if the the processors are very less in urban area and farming is the primary occupation. In that case, urban unemployment won't decrease substantially.

C) hits that point aptly.

OA please.
E is relevant here because "the lack of profitability" is directly related to the tariffs imposed that would benefit "most farmers" including the ones in the country.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:13 am
Experts please explain in details...really tough one
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 amFollowed by: 64 members
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:41 pm
ssgmatter wrote:Experts please explain in details...really tough one
Removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.


In a sense, the conclusion seems logical.After all, removing the tariff would likely force cashew processing plants in the city out of business, leading to layoffs.

However, E indicates that the current low price for cashews , a consequence of the tariff, is prompting farmers to go to the city in search of work. Thus removing the tariff would lead to layoffs in the city, but would likely allow farmers to stay on their farms and avoid joining the ranks of the 'urban employed´.

In a nutshell, E makes it evident that the tariff is preserving urban jobs, but also forcing farmers to look for jobs in the city.

C is wrong: people who farm cashews probably do not do so in the city: this answer choice is a trap for those of us who overlooked the word 'urban' in the conclusion
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 amFollowed by: 3 members
Thanked: 16 times

by ssgmatter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:54 pm
@kevin....so this means that option E explicitly says that employment will increase instead of decrease as more farmers would be coming to the cities in search of more money....

whereas i believe that option C has no bearing on the conclusion...i mean we are not concerned what ratio of people is involve in farming cashews or processing them....we are only concerned with the efforts of govt to reduce unemployment....

Please correct me if i go wrong in my reasoining here...

Many thanks!
Best-
Amit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:13 pm
If we are not going to have farmers dealing with cashews then obviously the cashew nuts processing centres in the City would also have to be closed down. This is my reasoning.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:31 am

by kaushals » Sun May 02, 2010 2:41 am
IMO E
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply