Because of a rare type of fungus that killed off many cacao trees in Brazil, there was an unusually meager harvest of cacao beans this year. The wholesale price of cocoa solids and cocoa butter has increased significantly and is unlikely to fall in the foreseeable future. As a result, the retail price of chocolate is certain to increase within six months.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
(A) Consumers will purchase other sweets if the price of chocolate increases.
(B) Researchers have discovered an effective method to kill the fungus.
(C) Dark and bittersweet varieties of chocolate will be affected more seriously than milk varieties.
(D) The price of chocolate has decreased steadily for three years.
(E) Most chocolate in stores is manufactured from cocoa that was purchased two years earlier.
OA E
Source: Manhattan Prep
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Because of a rare type of fungus that killed off many cacao trees in Brazil, there was an unusually meager harvest of
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Premise: There was an unusual meager harvest of cocoa beans this year because of a rare type of fungus that killed off many cocoas in Brazil.
Conclusion: The retail price of chocolate is certain to increase within six months.
We are looking for the option that can be used to prove a point, such that it will counter the resolution of in passage from happening. So, let's examine each option carefully so as to find which is best fit to weaken this argument.
Option A - incorrect:
Of course, there is every tendency that consumers will purchase other sweets as an alternative if the price of chocolate increases but that doesn't negate the fact that the price of chocolate will increase. Hence, this claim is wrong.
Option B - incorrect:
It's evident from the passage that fungus that killed many cocoa trees in Brazil is responsible for the proposition on the increase in chocolate within six months. While the researchers have discovered an effective method to kill the fungus, have they tested it out yet? NO. Will they test it now or within the next six months or after the next six months to see its effectiveness? NO. Therefore, we can't rely on this option to weaken this argument as there is no certainty.
Option C - incorrect:
This claim is not true as the passage does not specify if some varieties of chocolate will be affected more than others.
Option D - incorrect:
The fact that the price of chocolate has decreased steadily for three years does not hinder the retail price of chocolate from increasing due to the situation at hand.
Option E - correct:
There is no point why the price of retail chocolate should increase within the next six months when most of the chocolate in stores was manufactured from cocoa purchased two years earlier and not the recent high-price cocoa. Therefore, there should be no increase in the retail price of chocolate within the next six months as the chocolates in stores were not produced from high-price cocoa. Hence, this option is the best fit option to weaken this argument.
Conclusion: The retail price of chocolate is certain to increase within six months.
We are looking for the option that can be used to prove a point, such that it will counter the resolution of in passage from happening. So, let's examine each option carefully so as to find which is best fit to weaken this argument.
Option A - incorrect:
Of course, there is every tendency that consumers will purchase other sweets as an alternative if the price of chocolate increases but that doesn't negate the fact that the price of chocolate will increase. Hence, this claim is wrong.
Option B - incorrect:
It's evident from the passage that fungus that killed many cocoa trees in Brazil is responsible for the proposition on the increase in chocolate within six months. While the researchers have discovered an effective method to kill the fungus, have they tested it out yet? NO. Will they test it now or within the next six months or after the next six months to see its effectiveness? NO. Therefore, we can't rely on this option to weaken this argument as there is no certainty.
Option C - incorrect:
This claim is not true as the passage does not specify if some varieties of chocolate will be affected more than others.
Option D - incorrect:
The fact that the price of chocolate has decreased steadily for three years does not hinder the retail price of chocolate from increasing due to the situation at hand.
Option E - correct:
There is no point why the price of retail chocolate should increase within the next six months when most of the chocolate in stores was manufactured from cocoa purchased two years earlier and not the recent high-price cocoa. Therefore, there should be no increase in the retail price of chocolate within the next six months as the chocolates in stores were not produced from high-price cocoa. Hence, this option is the best fit option to weaken this argument.
