Critical Reasoning

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 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.

I confidently chose C. But its wrong. Can someone help please

The conclusion is that removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce URBAN unemployment.

You are looking to weaken this conclusion. There needs to be some reason why lifting the tariff and presumably having some of the processing jobs lost in the urban areas will not result in more urban unemployment.

If countryside unemployment rises based on lower cashew profits (based on tariffs) and if unemployment in the countryside drives people to urban areas to find work then that will increase the urban unemployment. So if we can reduce the unemployment in the countryside (by removing the tariffs) than it will reduce unemployment in the urban areas.

Choice E is the correct answer as it indicates that allowing the cashews to be sold worldwide would result in more jobs in the countryside and fewer small farmers moving to the cities looking for work.