Goronian lawmaker

[urshohini]

Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about one percent of the cheese that it inspects. Since the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible, whereas the cost of maintaining the agency is not, the agency's cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides.

Knowing the answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the lawmaker's argument?

A. Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia?
B. Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?
C. Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?
D. Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board?
E. How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?

Source : GMAT Prep

OA - C

I had chosen B as the answer, as I thought that if the operating costs of the board is reduced, then the question of high operating costs against benefits would also reduce.
Can you please tell me where my understanding is wrong, and why C is the right answer and not B?

[RonPurewal]

the passage explicitly states that the agency's actions have a negligible benefit ("the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible"). in other words, the benefit of those actions is essentially zero.

therefore, even if the agency were to tighten up its budget, as implied by choice (b), the problem would still exist.

choice (c), on the other hand, suggests that the agency's actions are NOT negligible, for reasons that the original passage has neglected to consider. this definitely weakens the original argument.

[urshohini]

Thanks Ron for the explanation.

If we would have had an answer choice that would strengthen the argument and support the claim that the agency's action are not beneficial, then would this also help evaluate the argument?

[jnelson0612]

Thanks Ron for the explanation.

If we would have had an answer choice that would strengthen the argument and support the claim that the agency's action are not beneficial, then would this also help evaluate the argument?

Notice that the right answer choice will either strengthen or weaken the argument based on the answer to that question. It does not itself strengthen the conclusion.

Let's look at the right answer choice:
C. Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?

If the answer to this is NO, then it affirms the idea that the agency isn't really helping and should be eliminated.

If the answer to this is YES, then it shows that the mere existence of the agency is helping in that it is keeping exporters from sending bad cheese. Without the agency bad cheese may enter the country and harm the population.

Please let us know if you need further clarification. :-)