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