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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Kernland imposes a high tariff...
-
Vignesh.4384
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.apple100 wrote:what is the reasoning behind E?Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
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?sudeep_ar wrote:Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.apple100 wrote:what is the reasoning behind E?Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
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.
apple100 wrote:how can you deduct that bc of the tarrif, the farmers are moving to the city?sudeep_ar wrote:Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.apple100 wrote:what is the reasoning behind E?Vignesh.4384 wrote:IMO E
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.
-
vinaynp
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
IMO C by POEska7945 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.
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.
-
rocketsbball
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:35 pm
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.vinaynp wrote:IMO C by POEska7945 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.
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.
-
kevincanspain
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 613
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
- Location: madrid
- Thanked: 171 times
- Followed by:64 members
- GMAT Score:790
Removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.ssgmatter wrote:Experts please explain in details...really tough one
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
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
-
ssgmatter
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:3 members
@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!
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
Amit
-
paddle_sweep
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
- Location: Chennai,India
- Thanked: 3 times
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.
