One feature of the global food economy

[shimbal80]

One feature of the global food economy is the simultaneous import and export of the same items, a phenomenon known as "redundant trade." In California, for example, domestic cherries are exported to Canada and Japan, while a nearly equivalent number of cherries are imported from Chile, Italy, and Germany. California also exports and imports nearly identical amounts of lettuce and almonds. Although shipping fresh fruits and vegetables is an expensive undertaking, there is a justifiable economic rationale for redundant trade.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion above?

A) Establishing international ties through trade facilitates access to other desired goods that are more efficiently produced abroad.

b) Undertaking free trade with one's political allies helps to maintain international goodwill.

c) In recent years, consumers in California boycotted domestic cherries, demanding better working conditions for agricultural laborers in the state.

d) Local growers could sell their products at a premium in domestic markets.

e) The economic globalization of redundant trade allows for the sharing of cultural norms and values.

I can not understand this question. Can experts explain how right answer is related to conclusion and argument.
It does not speak about other goods. Rather in the first sentence, it said import and export same items.

Thanks in advance

Right answer A
Source Manhattan Gmat

[rishab1988]

simbal

This question has already been discussed.I have typed in an explanation for this question.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-strengthe ... tml#317944

[shimbal80]

simbal

This question has already been discussed.I have typed in an explanation for this question.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-strengthe ... tml#317944

Thank you, But I have not understand yet.

[shovan85]

One feature of the global food economy is the simultaneous import and export of the same items, a phenomenon known as "redundant trade." In California, for example, domestic cherries are exported to Canada and Japan, while a nearly equivalent number of cherries are imported from Chile, Italy, and Germany. California also exports and imports nearly identical amounts of lettuce and almonds. Although shipping fresh fruits and vegetables is an expensive undertaking, there is a justifiable economic rationale for redundant trade.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the conclusion above?

Basically, the passage says same items are redundantly imported and exported to the same country. Giving, California as an example the author has shown 3 different products. Along with that see the countries. Export to Canada Japan. Import from Chile, Italy, and Germany. All different 5 countries are having Trading Partnership with California.

Argument: Though it is an expensive process (and logically also why export and import the same item) it has its justification.

I can not understand this question. Can experts explain how right answer is related to conclusion and argument.
It does not speak about other goods. Rather in the first sentence, it said import and export same items.

The question is asking to Strengthen the Argument. And this is a rule that you can bring relevant outside information to strengthen the argument or conclusion. Think about it, why an argument is weak? Because the argument is missing a support that will bolster the argument. Is not it?

Coming to the same item import and export means if X is exported to C1 then X is imported from C2. So what actually happening it not only X that country is in redundant trade but so many other products are also involved in same manner.

Options:


A) Establishing international ties through trade facilitates access to other desired goods that are more efficiently produced abroad.

This one is not easy to select as Correct. But you can discard other 4 options easily than proving this one correct.

See in the passage multiple countries are mentioned as a Trading partner of California. Though same goods are traded, but the different different goods are exported and imported. I mean X is exported X is imported, Y is exported Y is imported, and so on.

B) Undertaking free trade with one's political allies helps to maintain international goodwill.

Maintain international good will makes sense but the words such as Free Trade and Political Allies is far from the context. So Wrong.

C) In recent years, consumers in California boycotted domestic cherries, demanding better working conditions for agricultural laborers in the state.

Yes, they boycotted, that could be the reason California is exporting. But how can we relate the reason to justify economic rationale for redundant trade. Not possible. So Wrong.

D) Local growers could sell their products at a premium in domestic markets.

If you see a emotion driven option (usage of word "should/could") it could be Wrong (almost all the time).
If local growers could sell the product at a premium then what can we say about Export or Import? If the cost is high in local market then will it not be exported? If No then how can you say so? Where is it mentioned in the passage?
As we cannot say about the trade itself then how can we take this option to Justify Redundant Trade?

E) The economic globalization of redundant trade allows for the sharing of cultural norms and values.

Yes, the sharing of cultural norms and values may happen. So is it a Economic rationale Or Cultural Rationale? This is not what we want as per the Conclusion. So, Wrong.

[lunarpower]

I can not understand this question. Can experts explain how right answer is related to conclusion and argument.
It does not speak about other goods.

Rather in the first sentence, it said import and export same items.

Thanks in advance

Right answer A
Source Manhattan Gmat

i've highlighted what appears to be your principal issue with this question, in red. in fact, if that's the way in which you approach strengthening and weakening questions in general, you are going to have a whole lot of unavoidable problems with them.
remember:
on STRENGTHENING AND WEAKENING questions, the correct answer will ALWAYS go at least somewhat BEYOND the existing scope of the passage!

from the wording of what you've written up there, it appears that you are expecting the answer to stay within the scope of the passage. that's not a characteristic of correct answers to this type of question -- you are confusing this question type with different question types (specifically "draw the conclusion", and, under some circumstances, "find the assumption") on which the answer choices do have to stay within the scope of the argument.
on strengthening and weakening questions, though, they don't, and won't. (this is how you strengthen or weaken an argument: you introduce additional considerations that were not included in the original argument.)

--

in any case, the important issue here is whether the specific conclusion of the passage is addressed; that specific conclusion is that there is an ECONOMIC rationale for this sort of redundant trade.
in this sense, (b), (c), and (e) are irrelevant to the topic at hand, since they don't deal with economic issues. (B deals with political issues, C with ethical issues, and E with cultural issues.)

choice (d) is economically relevant, but it goes the wrong way -- if that statement is true, then, ceteris paribus, it's an argument against the sort of trade described in the passage (because it seems to indicate that it would be more economically beneficial to keep the domestic goods at home, rather than trading them abroad).

choice (a) is the only one of the five answer choices that gives a positive ECONOMIC reason why redundant trade would be beneficial: it would facilitate access to other goods.

[shimbal80]

Dear Ron,

Thank you very much.
That's right. I am usually confused this type of questions with assumption.

Your explanation helps me.