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

Redeem

weaken

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:06 am
Thanked: 6 times

weaken

by gmatnmein2010 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:24 am
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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:00 am
would go with E.

And the explanation is:
Removing tariff increases urban unemployment

What if there is another scenario which increases urban unemployment. That would weaken the argument.
In E, "lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities" increases urban unemployment. So we found an alternative cause for an effect
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:57 am
Hope this helps!
gmatnmein2010 wrote: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.
Incorrect : Strengthens the argument. Since processing of cashew nuts helps in providing employment in other industries as well.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Incorrect : Unrelated to the POD here. Other countries have not deal to do with this one.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing
them.
Incorrect : We are talking here about urban cities... "Kernland" may be one of them but we are not sure as no such information is given.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
Incorrect : Strengthens the argument. since farmers would not sell cashew nuts to domestic processing industries if tariffs are removed, industries cannot process the cashew nuts itself. So cities would lose employment.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in
Kernland off their land and into the cities.
Correct : Since there is no profit for farmers even when there are tariffs, removing of tariffs would hardly affect the farmers income and hence removed tariff would not trouble the domestic market at all. Also, farmers would be engaging into processing industries in cities more than growing crops which indicates good employment for processing industries in urban areas
Though, option E does not completely attacks the argument, it indicates a reason to increase the employment in cities.
While other options are unrelated or strengthen the argument.
Hence E is the best option though not a perfect option.
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:09 am
A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Incorrect : By products of processing cashews are irrelevant.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Incorrect : What other countries are doing is irrelevant here.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Incorrect : Does nothing to weaken the argument.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
Incorrect : Out of scope

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
Correct : Because of the Tariff the profit level for the farmers is not high and they are forced to move to the cities (urban) and the unemployment rate will increase(what the government is trying to reduce in Urban areas).
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1