Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Krenlandian Newspaper:
If A is true, then the concern raised by editorial is not significant.arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Looking for 780~
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:48 am
- Thanked: 15 times
i think its C
The argument is the Govt should take measures to reduce cheap steel imports... this will increase the price of steel in domestic market ....
C says that the cutomers/users of this steel are already facing severe competetion ... so if the the steel prices go up, these companies will get hurt ....
So the Govt decision. may benefit the steel companies (only for a while) ... overall it wont be good for industrial employement in Krenland..... becuase it'll hurt other companies and eventually steel also ....
The argument is the Govt should take measures to reduce cheap steel imports... this will increase the price of steel in domestic market ....
C says that the cutomers/users of this steel are already facing severe competetion ... so if the the steel prices go up, these companies will get hurt ....
So the Govt decision. may benefit the steel companies (only for a while) ... overall it wont be good for industrial employement in Krenland..... becuase it'll hurt other companies and eventually steel also ....
i think its D..
conclusion=measures to reduce cheap steel imports will protect steel companies and employment.(i.e cheap steel leads to unemployment and loss in domestic sales for steel makers)
therefore,to weaken..find some other reason for the domestic sales loss(or rise in competition)
D states that..Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems and not"cheap steel imports" lead to rise in competition., and so even if measures are taken to reduce cheap imports..it will not improve the problem of unemployment and competition.
i hope this helps..
whats the OA?
conclusion=measures to reduce cheap steel imports will protect steel companies and employment.(i.e cheap steel leads to unemployment and loss in domestic sales for steel makers)
therefore,to weaken..find some other reason for the domestic sales loss(or rise in competition)
D states that..Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems and not"cheap steel imports" lead to rise in competition., and so even if measures are taken to reduce cheap imports..it will not improve the problem of unemployment and competition.
i hope this helps..
whats the OA?
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:3 members
Can anyone please explain why D is wrong/correct in this case?arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland�s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland�s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial�s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers� revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Best-
Amit
Amit
- 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
It's important, as always, to focus on the conclusion and examine the evidence:arorag wrote:Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland�s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland�s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial�s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers� revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Conclusion: Our government can protect the domestic steel industry and industrial employment by limiting cheap imports.
Evidence: Our country's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of cheap imports.
Objection: Such a ban may help our steelmakers, but what effect would it have on companies that benefit from access to cheap steel?
A is irrelevant, as the evidence is about domestic sales.
B eliminates an alternative ways of seeking relief from cheating countries, but is irrelevant
C shows that such a ban, by preventing domestic manufacturers from securing steel cheaply, would undermine their ability to compete both within and outside our country- thus the ban is likely to reduce industrial employment CORRECT
D irrelevant: the fact remains that we are losing domestic steels sales because of imports
E see D
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:08 am
- Thanked: 1 times
The conclusion says that a reduction of cheap steel imports will benefit the steelmaking companies and employment.
C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
C weakens since it says that Krenland's steelmakers who use raw steel will benefit from the reduced price of raw steel.
C addresses certain aspects but it does not address the cause of Krenland's steelmakers trying to sell raw steel. If there are low priced steel imports, employment and the companies using raw steel may benefit but the companies trying to produce raw steel will not benefit as they will face competition from the cheap imports.
Thus C does not weaken the important point in the argument that Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) are losing domestic sales.
C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
C weakens since it says that Krenland's steelmakers who use raw steel will benefit from the reduced price of raw steel.
C addresses certain aspects but it does not address the cause of Krenland's steelmakers trying to sell raw steel. If there are low priced steel imports, employment and the companies using raw steel may benefit but the companies trying to produce raw steel will not benefit as they will face competition from the cheap imports.
Thus C does not weaken the important point in the argument that Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) are losing domestic sales.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:08 am
- Thanked: 1 times
Also, in my opinion the point about Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) is the sole point in the argument.TheGraduate wrote:The conclusion says that a reduction of cheap steel imports will benefit the steelmaking companies and employment.
C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
C weakens since it says that Krenland's steelmakers who use raw steel will benefit from the reduced price of raw steel.
C addresses certain aspects but it does not address the cause of Krenland's steelmakers trying to sell raw steel. If there are low priced steel imports, employment and the companies using raw steel may benefit but the companies trying to produce raw steel will not benefit as they will face competition from the cheap imports.
Thus C does not weaken the important point in the argument that Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) are losing domestic sales.
Please clarify.
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
Plan: Take measures to reduce cheap steel imports.TheGraduate wrote:Also, in my opinion the point about Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) is the sole point in the argument.TheGraduate wrote:The conclusion says that a reduction of cheap steel imports will benefit the steelmaking companies and employment.
C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
C weakens since it says that Krenland's steelmakers who use raw steel will benefit from the reduced price of raw steel.
C addresses certain aspects but it does not address the cause of Krenland's steelmakers trying to sell raw steel. If there are low priced steel imports, employment and the companies using raw steel may benefit but the companies trying to produce raw steel will not benefit as they will face competition from the cheap imports.
Thus C does not weaken the important point in the argument that Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) are losing domestic sales.
Please clarify.
Conclusion: The plan will protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland.
One way to weaken the conclusion is show that a reduction in cheap steel imports will somehow have a NEGATIVE effect on industrial employment in Krenland.
C: For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
Implication:
While international competitors will still have access to cheap foreign steel, Krenlandian manufacturers will see their steel costs increase significantly.
The result is likely to be a NEGATIVE EFFECT on industrial employment in Krenland, WEAKENING the conclusion that the plan will PROTECT industrial employment in Krenland.
The correct answer is C.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
- DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
This is where you went wrong. If an argument includes a plan to accomplish X and Y, we can't assume that one matters more than the other or that one is the main focus. If we want to weaken the plan, it's sufficient to show either that X will not be accomplished or that Y will not be accomplished. Here the conclusion includes two objectivesAlso, in my opinion the point about Krenland's steelmakers (who sell raw steel) is the sole point in the argument.
Please clarify.
1) protect steel companies
2) protect industrial employment
(Notice that objective 2 is about industrial employment in general.)
You're right that the plan will probably accomplish objective 1. That's why we're looking for an answer choice that will undermine objective 2. This is what C does. If costs go up for manufacturers, in general, it will likely hurt industrial employment, thus undermining the second objective of the plan.