Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

[jonh27]

GMAT Prep CAT Verbal Question

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 byproducts of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
B) Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
C) More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
D) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices
E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

OA: E

I'm not sure why E is the answer. Is it because it provides an alternative explanation, which is a way to weaken an argument? I would imagine that if more people are going into the cities, then they'll need jobs that require domestic processing, so the tariff helps reduce unemployement. If the government removed the tariff, how would it affect urban unemployment in this situation?

Thanks.

[JonathanSchneider]

This is a very difficult question, but you might arrive at E in two ways:

1) by process of ellimination
2) by noticing the change in the argument at the word "however" and noting this in your diagram somehow

A reduced diagram:

K: (up) tariff cashew exports ---> sold to domestic plants
If no tariff ----> more farmers get $
BUT plants in cities, so no tariff ----> hurt gov effort to (down) unemployment
(AKA we need the plants to stay open)

Notice that we must weaken the conclusion, which is the cause and effect relationship in bold above. At this point, notice that the conclusion is immediately following the word "BUT." So, strengthen the preceding idea, and as a result you can weaken the C.

E is right because it shows us that without good crops to grow for profit, poor farmers will move to the city. Well, the tariff, if removed, would allow those poor farmers to make money growing cashews. As a result, they wouldn't need to move to the city to find work. Hence, the unemployment rates in the city would not go up because of these new workers. Everything in this argument is tied together. It is essential that you see important words like "however" and the relationships that these words create among various parts of the argument.

A tough one, but a good one.

[gkumar]

This was a toughie! Thanks for a great explanation, Jon.

[RonPurewal]

This was a toughie! Thanks for a great explanation, Jon.

glad it helped

[sandeep.19+man]

Well, the tariff, if removed, would allow those poor farmers to make money growing cashews. As a result, they wouldn't need to move to the city to find work. Hence, the unemployment rates in the city would not go up because of these new workers.

What you are saying, in effect, is that workers who move to the city will be unemployed. Isn't that too much of an assumption as per GMAT standards?

Could you explain it a little more clearly?

Thank You

[RonPurewal]

What you are saying, in effect, is that workers who move to the city will be unemployed. Isn't that too much of an assumption as per GMAT standards?

Could you explain it a little more clearly?

Thank You

nope, definitely not too much of an assumption. two solid reasons why not.

first, there has to be some baseline assumption here -- i.e., we must make a judgment as to which of the following alternatives is more reasonable:
1 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO NOT have prearranged jobs
VS
2 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO have prearranged jobs
i think you'll agree that the first of these assumptions is much more reasonable than the second.

also, note what we're trying to do in this problem: we are trying to WEAKEN the argument.
if any non-negligible fraction of the farmers lack jobs in the city, then the government plan will help to reduce city unemployment, by keeping these farmers on their land (and thus out of the city). therefore, if there is a positive effect on reducing unemployment, that's exactly the opposite of what the argument claims -- so the argument is weakened.
in fact, the only way this choice doesn't weaken the argument is if you assume that ALL of the farmers have jobs waiting for them in the city. that would be the unreasonable assumption here.

[cheersme15]

please may i ask...what`s wrong with D?

[mschwrtz]

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.

[s.ashwin.rao]

I do not agree. Why not C? I had a hard time between C and E but selected C because the argument is concerned with welfare of people farming cashews and not really if these people went to the city.

Further the choice E talks of "small farmers" who knows to what extent these people account for the farming community as a whole. Also I think there is substantial difference between "urban areas" and cities aren't we assuming too many things with E?

[dmitryknowsbest]

Be careful to identify the conclusion carefully before attempting to weaken. The conclusion here has nothing to do with the welfare of farmers. The conclusion is that this tariff would hamper government efforts to reduce urban unemployment.

As for E, we don't need to assume that small farmers are representative of the farming community as a whole. E tells us that the current situation is driving small farmers into the city to find work (and yes, urban=of or pertaining to the city). This puts the conclusion in some doubt, as the loss of processing jobs could be offset to some extent by the reduction of flight to the city on the part of small farmers.

Remember that in order to weaken the argument, we do *not* need to prove the conclusion wrong. We simply need to come up with something that makes the argument less convincing. Do we know how the numbers will work out here? No. Could the removal of the tariff still make urban unemployment worse? Sure. But E shows us a hole in the argument, and that's all we need.

[mirantdon]

Thanks Dmitry for the reply :-)

[RonPurewal]

he's a smart one, that dmitry.

[vr8325]

I had a tought time with this one but here is an easy explanation:
-Pay attention to the words "Processed and Unprocessed"
So basically the high tariffs are imposed so that domestic processors have sufficient cashews to process and they stay in business. If the tariffs are lifted then the cashews will rather be processed in international locations which are cheaper and hence cause damage to the domestic processors' business and in turn the farmers would profit.
However, since all of these plants are in urban areas and if the tariffs are lifted then the existing unemplyment issue that the government is trying to fix will get worse!

Conclusion- The tariff should not be lifted as it will worsen the unemployment problem in the cities.

Weaken the argument would mean that somehow NOT lifting the tariff is also NOT causing a good affect.

(E) says exactly this - "Since the goverment is not lifting the tariff-> the farmers have a lack of profitable crops; since they have to get the cashews processed from the more expensive domestic processors-> causing farmers to leave farming and move to the cities-> and hence worsening the issue of umemployment by not just adding themselves to the pool of unemployed but also giving less work to domestic producers (who will eventually run out of business too)!

[tim]

thanks for your analysis!

[davetzulin]

first off i want to say I saw this problem on Ron's video and his videos on strengthen/weaken are indispensable. i went through the "leading" CR book and i never got even close to doing the strengthen weaken problems as well as i can now (and all I did was watch the first segment of his video about formal thinking vs intuition)

in any case, my question is about answer choice D. I see this as a an assumption that the argument relies on (so in this case a strengthener). what are the experts thoughts?

I care because if this were a assumption question, answer choice D could be the answer and i'd consider it very hard to figure out.

D) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices

using intuition, competitive prices suggests economic viability and that solidifies that these processors make money and therefore should keep people working (employed)