Critical Reasoning

Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States government, through farm subsidies, is responsible for the artificially low global price of wheat. Because the U.S. government buys whatever wheat American farmers are unable to sell on the open market, American farmers have no incentive to modulate the size of their crops according to the needs of the global market. As a result, American farmers routinely produce more wheat than the global market can absorb and the global price of wheat is kept low. Without these subsidies, the farmers in developing economies claim, American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the claims of the farmers in developing countries regarding the price of wheat?

a. Wheat that is not processed for consumption is often used for certain industrial applications.
b. Non-governmental buyers of wheat and whea
t products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance.
c. The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat.
d. Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output.
e. The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat.

IMO:C

US subsidies --> increased supply --> price drops.
subsidies --> price drops

d) provides an alternate cause

Russia, Canada can increase supply too.

d is the answer

palvarez wrote:US subsidies --> increased supply --> price drops.
subsidies --> price drops

d) provides an alternate cause

Russia, Canada can increase supply too.

d is the answer

I think u r right..!

okigbo wrote:Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States government, through farm subsidies, is responsible for the artificially low global price of wheat. Because the U.S. government buys whatever wheat American farmers are unable to sell on the open market, American farmers have no incentive to modulate the size of their crops according to the needs of the global market. As a result, American farmers routinely produce more wheat than the global market can absorb and the global price of wheat is kept low. Without these subsidies, the farmers in developing economies claim, American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the claims of the farmers in developing countries regarding the price of wheat?

a. Wheat that is not processed for consumption is often used for certain industrial applications.
b. Non-governmental buyers of wheat and whea
t products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance.
c. The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat.
d. Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output.
e. The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat.

POE

a- It is irrelevant how the wheat is used, only that it is purchased

b- Irrelevant

c- And who knows, the price of soybeans could still be drastically lower relative to their true fair market value

d- YES. These farmers in other countries are upset about the US flooding, but if Canada and Russia would flood without the US anyway, then who cares

e- Irrelevant.

D is the answer...

It conveys that even If farmers in the US are ready to reduce the farming of Wheat, there is definitely a chance that other countries might increase their production, which might also cause the same problem discussed. So, just reducing the production in the US will not help.

OA: D

I picked C on this one. Any pointers on how to avoid these tricks on weaken questions would be greatly appreciated.

The best thing in weakening questions is that if some answer choices go out of scope, it is less likely that we can call it weak. And also, If the right answer choice has to weaken the argument, it has to weaken the assumption that is laid in forming a conclusion.

Here, cutting down producing wheat in US is the conclusion that is formed from the assumption that since the US is giving subsidies to wheat farmers,they produce, their policies must be causing the wheat prices to decline globally. Whichever choice attacks this assumption well, it is the answer.

One of the problem types in weaken question is causal conclusion.
Our problem belongs to this type.

US subsidies are causing more wheat prod which inturn low prices of wheat
i.e. US sub -> Low prices.

The author believes that only US sub are responsible for low prices and nothing else.

in (d) author is giving alternate reason for low prices. i.e. extra production by canada and Russia.

Since there is an alternate way for reducing prices, this answer (d) weakens the authors assumption and hence is the correct answer.

In D, how do you know that Canada and Russia will produce amounts of wheat equivalent to the amounts the US will cut ?!!!!

palvarez wrote:US subsidies --> increased supply --> price drops.
subsidies --> price drops

d) provides an alternate cause

Russia, Canada can increase supply too.

d is the answer

In D, how do you know that Canada and Russia will produce amounts of wheat equivalent to the amounts the US will cut ?!!!!

heshamelaziry wrote:

palvarez wrote:US subsidies --> increased supply --> price drops.
subsidies --> price drops

d) provides an alternate cause

Russia, Canada can increase supply too.

d is the answer

In D, how do you know that Canada and Russia will produce amounts of wheat equivalent to the amounts the US will cut ?!!!!

Oh well, one doesn't need to look for the equivalent. D provides alternative cause for increase. In causal arguments, find alternate path to the effect; thats enough, because the argument assumes that the said cause is the one and only.

Thanks Palvarez, I don't know when to stop. some argument require deep thinking, others don't.

heshamelaziry wrote:

palvarez wrote:US subsidies --> increased supply --> price drops.
subsidies --> price drops

d) provides an alternate cause

Russia, Canada can increase supply too.

d is the answer

In D, how do you know that Canada and Russia will produce amounts of wheat equivalent to the amounts the US will cut ?!!!!

Hi Hesham,

Palvarez' tips are dead-on.

Also, it helps to know the definition of strengthening:

"a fact makes an argument stronger when the fact makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY to be true (more likely to be true than it was prior to our knowledge of that fact)."

Think about it like this. Let's say we have a barometer to measure how convinced you are with an argument, how persuasive you find it:

1 = you don't find the argument completely false-utterly unconvincing.

5 = you find the argument believeable and/or moderately persuasive but not necessarily true.

10= you are so persuaded by the argument that you find it as certain as the next sunrise.

Let's say your level of belief in the argument is 5. When you read choice D here, it should clearly up it to 7 or 8. It doesn't have to push it all the way to 10. It just has to INCREASE the likelihood of the argument being correct.

And, of course, all of these comments, with necessary changes, apply to weaken questions.

Hi Deepak,

In another post you mentioned that answers for assumption questions do not contain extreme language like: all, most, never,.... Is this applicable most of the time with assumption as it is with main point /inferred / must be true ?