CR Question

[Shib]

Source : IMS Gmat Study Material

Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in Ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.



Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the plan’s chances for success?



A. The cost of raising soybeans has increased significantly over the past several years and is expected to continue to climb.

B. Tests of a newly developed, inexpensive pesticide have shown it to be both environmentally safe and effective against the insects that have infested cotton crops.

C. In the past several years, there has been no sharp increase in the demand for cotton and for goods made out of cotton.

D. Few consumers would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for cotton goods than they are now paying.

E. The species of insect that has infested cotton plants has never been known to attack soybean plants.


Which will be the correct answer and why?

[dbernst]

Shib, one of the keys to answering weaken/strengthen questions is to efficiently yet accurately identify the argument's conclusion and then to understand the premises (facts) on which this conclusion rests. In the text at hand, the soybean farmers have concluded that a switch to cotton will permit them to take advantage of the increased price of cotton on the world markets. In GMAT "shorthand," my diagram would appear as follows

P: Insects -> cotton $^ on world market
P: Soybean $ stable
C: Ortavia farmers will increase income significantly if switch to cotton

To weaken this conclusion, the answer choice must demonstrate that the switch to cotton will NOT necessarily increase the income of Ortavia's farmers. Use a strengthen/weaken slash chart as you utilize your process of elimination.

-- A) This has no bearing on the conclusion

W B) If a new pesticide were developed, farmers globally could again begin to grow cotton, reversing its increasing price on world markets.

w C) A smaller weaken. According to the text, supply of cotton has decreased. Thus, we do not necessarily need to show an increase in demand.

-- D) As long as customers are paying the high current price, there is no need for the price to further increase

-- E) Not relevant

The correct answer is B :)

[sd]

Instructor, can you please explain why C is wrong, in more detail. I read your explanation for C, but did not understand, why C is wrong.

On exam, I debated between B and C and picked C (which is the wrong answer). On exam, if 2 choices such as these both seem to be correct, how do I pick the "most" superior answer? Please help.

[RonPurewal]

Instructor, can you please explain why C is wrong, in more detail. I read your explanation for C, but did not understand, why C is wrong.

On exam, I debated between B and C and picked C (which is the wrong answer). On exam, if 2 choices such as these both seem to be correct, how do I pick the "most" superior answer? Please help.

(c) is wrong because the price of cotton is ALREADY HIGH. if there has been no further increase in demand, that doesn't really make a difference at this point; according to the passage, the cotton price is currently at a level that will enable the reaping of large profits.
i.e., as long as demand doesn't DECREASE sharply, we're good. "no sharp increase" doesn't even come close to being strong enough to weaken the conclusion.

[raed.barkatis]

I am wondering whether E also weakens the argument.
If the insects have never been known to attack soybean plants that suggests that the Ortovia growers' cotton plants will be always vulnerable for those kinds of insects. If Cotton plants are infected there is no production thus no increase in income.
Of course there can be an increase in income before the infection but the conclusion states an increase "at least over the next several years".

Thank you.

PS: sorry for the bump

[RonPurewal]

I am wondering whether E also weakens the argument.

no.

If the insects have never been known to attack soybean plants that suggests that the Ortovia growers' cotton plants will be always vulnerable for those kinds of insects.

nope.

first, there's no connection here; this is a complete non sequitur. it's like saying that i'm more likely to get a certain disease because my friend is immune to that disease.

second, you're just assuming that the insect is actually present in ortovia. you can't assume this; note that, according to the passage, the insect infestations are restricted to "certain cotton-growing parts of the world".

If Cotton plants are infected there is no production thus no increase in income.

yeah, but "cotton plants [in ortovia] are infected" is just a random hypothetical.
you can't build random hypotheticals -- i.e., random guesses about what will happen -- and then build an argument on those hypotheticals!

Of course there can be an increase in income before the infection but the conclusion states an increase "at least over the next several years".

same problem -- you're just assuming that an infestation will happen in ortovia. there is no reason to make such an assumption.

[quocvunguyendo]

Insect infestations lead to dramatic increase in cotton prices. As soybeans' prices have long been stable, soybean growers change to raise cotton to take advantage of the high price.

A) Opposite ans
B) Correct. If the cotton growers can fight against the insects by using new tech, the cotton price will drop as supply rises again.
C) "Past several years" has no bearing on the present. Moreover, even if the demand for cotton doesn't increase, its price can still spike as supply becomes more limited.
D) Opp ans
E) Irrelevant

[tim]

Please let us know if you have a question here.

[explorer31]

(c) is wrong because the price of cotton is ALREADY HIGH. if there has been no further increase in demand, that doesn't really make a difference at this point; according to the passage, the cotton price is currently at a level that will enable the reaping of large profits.
i.e., as long as demand doesn't DECREASE sharply, we're good. "no sharp increase" doesn't even come close to being strong enough to weaken the conclusion.[/quote]

Hello,

Please let me know if the below reasoning is incorrect. I received this question in my GMATPrep and chose C without a second thought.
My reasoning :
When the growers "begin" cotton plantation they will be adding to the supply and since there has been "no increase in demand" the excess supply will likely drive the price down or stabilize the high price of cotton. This, growers will be unable to reap the benefits of high price.

This seemed very obvious to me! As always appreciate your input.

[RonPurewal]

two problems with that --

1/
it's true that a significant increase in supply can cause prices to fall, but, that's a universal fact -- i.e., that's something that is true anyway, regardless of the foregoing trajectory of demand and/or prices.
so, choice C is irrelevant to this fact. it's still a fact, regardless of what demand and prices have been doing up to this point.

and, much more significantly,
2/
remember -- THE PAST DOESN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE.
your explanation / justification depends on the idea that the demand for cotton will STAY flat. but, there's no reason at all to make this assumption.
we know that demand has recently been flat -- but, this says nothing at all about the FUTURE trajectory of that demand. it could increase, decrease, or continue to be flat.
you're just assuming at random that demand will continue to do what it's been doing for the last few years. you can see why that's not valid, right?

[explorer31]

Yes. Thank you for pointing out the underlying assumption in my theory. NOw I can see that B definitely attacks the foundation on which the conclusion rests and not C.

Thank you very much!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]