Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

[RonPurewal]

dave, as soon as you figure out that choice (d) doesn't weaken the argument, you are done with that choice.

i see your point here, but it's super-important that you stay focused on the task at hand.
the task at hand is to find a choice that weakens the argument.

you are trying to distinguish between "strengthens" and "neither strengthens nor weakens" -- but, in the current problem, that distinction is irrelevant (since both of those are, at the end of the day, "doesn't weaken").

[mnuma1]

I selected C because if there are more farmers and farmers benefit from the lifted tariff, then lifting the tariff would help the overall population.

I read the posts above, but it is still not clear to me why this asnwer is wrong and why E is right, can someone please try to explain it one more time?

Thanks!

[tim]

even if there are more farmers, helping the farmers could come at the expense of the rest of the population, so it definitely does not follow that the population as a whole benefits..

as for why E works, that has already been discussed extensively here. if part of the explanation didn't make sense, let us know what part you had trouble with..

[THANU.KG]

Hi, I have a basic question on this, maybe my understanding of the question is incorrect.

Kernland is imposing a high tariff because the domestic (local) processing plants can get the cashwes processed. It also says that, after the however... part that ALL the processing plants are in urban areas. How can ALL the plants be in the city when the tariff was raised because there are plants in kernland also.

i'm confused. Please help.

[RonPurewal]

Hi, I have a basic question on this, maybe my understanding of the question is incorrect.

Kernland is imposing a high tariff because the domestic (local) processing plants can get the cashwes processed. It also says that, after the however... part that ALL the processing plants are in urban areas. How can ALL the plants be in the city when the tariff was raised because there are plants in kernland also.

i'm confused. Please help.

kernland is a country, not a city. it should be clear from context that the urban areas mentioned in the problem are IN the country of kernland.

we know that kernland must be a country because it has laws regarding "imports", "exports", and "tariffs" -- all of which are things that countries have (and that cities don't have).

[THANU.KG]

Thanks Ron. that was dumb of me.

[jlucero]

No worries

[maxschauss]

D actually strengthens the argument. The argument assumes that fewer people will be unemployed in urban areas if cashew processors have access to cashews at artificially low prices. D suggests that this assumption is true.

I don't get where you found this conclusion.
I thought the conclusion is:
lift tariff --> urban unemployment NOT reduce/increase

So D is a good match. Where soea it strengthen?
It says that unemployment in the city will not increase, maybe even decrease. Farmer can generate higher profita, processors can still sell cashews at competitive prices. Thus, the conclusion does not hold.

In E, we're just making assumptions over assumptions and try to justify a weird solution.

[RonPurewal]

So D is a good match. Where soea it strengthen?
It says that unemployment in the city will not increase, maybe even decrease. Farmer can generate higher profita, processors can still sell cashews at competitive prices. Thus, the conclusion does not hold.

choice (d) says that the processors buy the unprocessed nuts at prices that are below world market prices.
according to the passage, the farmers comply with this situation because they can't sell their nuts at world market prices (because of the tariff).

therefore, choice (d) is describing exactly the situation that will no longer be the case if the tariff is lifted.

In E, we're just making assumptions over assumptions and try to justify a weird solution.

OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; to do so is to waste your time and effort.

"is this correct?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking.
you will find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you retire the idea that they might be wrong.

[xyq121573]

sorry~i don't really understand the logic reasoning of this question~please help~~
i think the conclusion should be: removing tariff will increase the urban unemployment rate. to make it simple:
no A → B will rise(A:tariff B:urban unemployment rate)

what i am comfused is that since this conslusion don't deny the fact :
A → B will rise
that is: if there is tariff,( then farmers will go to cities,)the urban unemployment rate will rise, HOW could we use it to WEAKEN the conslusion?

ps:i never suspect the correctness of OA, but i really don't know how to understand it...please help&thks in advance~

[RonPurewal]

to make it simple:
no A → B will rise(A:tariff B:urban unemployment rate)

what i am comfused is that since this conslusion don't deny the fact :
A → B will rise

if this is how you're processing these statements -- as though they were boolean variables in a digital circuit, or something -- then this test is not going to be fun for you.

like just about everything else in the critical reasoning section, this distinction calls for the use of a certain amount of common sense. sometimes, that kind of thing can work with real-world examples; other times, it can't.
e.g.

if you drink rubbing alcohol, you'll die
--> in this case, we can't say "if you don't drink rubbing alcohol, you won't die".

on the other hand...
if sales taxes go up, businesses will make smaller profits
--> in this case, you absolutely CAN say "if sales taxes go down, businesses will make greater profits".

there's no sense in trying to make a "rule" for when you can and can't do this; it's a thousand times easier just to investigate examples individually, with your normal human intuition.

--

the other thing you shouldn't forget is that "weaken" is not the same as "destroy". you are never going to prove or disprove things in these problems; you're just judging evidence for or against a position.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi instructor,

Can you explain C? I choose it because not many people process cashchew in urban areas, so it won't affect the unemployment that much.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hi instructor,

Can you explain C? I choose it because not many people process cashchew in urban areas, so it won't affect the unemployment that much.

Thank you.

"Farmers outnumber processing workers" does not mean that the number of processing workers is so small as to be negligible.

As an analogy, Russia has more land area than the U.S. or Canada, but this certainly doesn't mean that the area of the U.S. or Canada is so small that you can ignore it!

[momo32]

Hi Ron,

I still cannot understand D. You mean that D is under the situation that the tariff is not lifted. And when the tariff is lifted.the price of it cannot below the market price. so the choice is wrong. is it right?

TIA

[quote][/quote]
choice (d) says that the processors buy the unprocessed nuts at prices that are below world market prices.
according to the passage, the farmers comply with this situation because they can't sell their nuts at world market prices (because of the tariff).

therefore, choice (d) is describing exactly the situation that will no longer be the case if the tariff is lifted.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I still cannot understand D. You mean that D is under the situation that the tariff is not lifted. And when the tariff is lifted.the price of it cannot below the market price. so the choice is wrong. is it right?

Yes.

In fact, choice D supports the argument"”"”for exactly the reason you've given here.

According to choice D, the Kernland cashew processors, which are located in cities, are competitive because they buy below market price.
If the tariff is lifted, they won't be able to do so anymore, since the farmers will be able to sell to other countries at the market price.

So, choice D shows us that the processing plants WILL fare worse if the tariff is lifted. This is exactly the point of the argument, so D is the opposite of what we want here.