tough CR

[RonPurewal]

How can we assume that just because production has peaked, demand for the goods has also peaked ?

we can't.

but the problem is the opposite: you declare that a few things are "extremely possible", but then you go on to construct an argument that actually revolves around the assumption that those things ARE TRUE.
if you just leave it as a possibility - which is all that you can do - then your objection doesn't hold any water.

this is one of those cases where you should take the simplest possible argument, with the least number of assumptions possible. in this case, the simplest situation, with the least assumptions, is that the country can't substantially increase its exports without ramping up production - a situation that's precluded by the fact that production is already peaking.

if you still want to argue the point, let me leave you with the following: it's their test, not mine. you've seen the sort of reasoning that's allowed on it as well as the sort of reasoning that isn't.

I still stand by what I said and we shall probably agree to disagree.

i understand.

do remember, though, that disagreeing with gmac will not exactly do wonders for your score.

btw, nice trivia on 'ignoratio elenchi' :)

i suppose all those hours in the public library were worth something, now, weren't they....

[Doe007]

Though acknowledging the fact that GMAT is the playground of GMAC, I cannot buy the OA for this particular problem.

The CR is assuming that to increase the export, the country needs more supply.

I am assuming that the supply (manufactured products) is in excess as manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels after several decades and the domestic demand is less than the supply. So the country needs to export excess supply.

Both the assumptions are not supported here in the CR. But, first assumption is weakening the politicians' recommendation and second assumption is strengthening the politicians' recommendation.

My point is that the question is not constructed properly. Here, GMAC can win over the debate through authoritarianism but logic!

[RonPurewal]

doe007, i get what you're saying, but the issue here is how to interpret the statement in choice (b).

choice (b) says:
"after several decades of operating well below its peak capcity, darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels"

the heart of the issue here is that there are two ways to interpret this statement.
1/
there's more demand within the country, so the recent spike in manufacturing has occurred in response to that increased demand. (in other words, the increase in manufacturing activity has happened for a reason)
2/
the recent spike in manufacturing has just happened, not in response to increased demand -- thus creating excess supply. (in other words, the increase in manufacturing activity has happened for no reason, basically just at random.)

your counter-argument here relies on "excess supply" -- in other words, interpretation #2.
the problem is that #2 is much less reasonable than #1 -- it's rather farfetched to think that the manufacturing sector would suddenly multiply its activity, after decades of consistent production at lower levels, for no particular reason whatsoever -- and so you should reject interpretation #2 in favor of #1.

this is, in fact, one of the primary reasons for the existence of strengthening/weakening problems on this exam: to ensure that you can interpret the statements in the most reasonable, or most probable, way.
the interpretations don't have to be certain, but they should be more likely than any others.

[Doe007]

Ron, Thanks for your explanation.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, Thanks for your explanation.

sure

[gauravtyagigmat]

B) After several decades of operating well below its peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels

How does the knowledge that for (20,30,40+) years the manufacturing output was low and now its high make the gov't think that lowering the currency won't help move manufactured goods? This answer choice is so flimsy and cannot be properly tied to the question stem without applying several unfactual assumptions. There is a strong correlation between the currency dropping and demand for exports. Now that you have an even larger supply of exports then ever before, dropping the value of the currency will attract foreign countries and almost guarantee that the politicians goal of seeing a "similarly sized increase in exports". I think it can be argued that this answer is actually a strengthener for the politicians argument.

nope. you're missing the important part here: the phrase near-peak.
this means that the manufacturing sector can't increase output by very much at all (this is what 'peak output' means).
if the manufacturing sector can't meaningfully increase output, then it won't be able to produce a big increase in exports, because there won't be any extra stuff to export.

Hi Ron,
I marked E because conclusion wants to increase export "Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again".option E says sharp increase in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain
on world markets.
this fact is supported by premise that when currency was weak
then Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up
substantially.

option B is says Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating atnear-peak levels.
Premise gives no support that operating atnear-peak levels also signifies increase in export as well.
whereas E provides opportunity that improvement in efficiency will make Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world market that in turn will improve export.

I got down to the OPtion B and E at last.I tried to apply the strategy give in MGMAT CR book that is
1.No tie to conclusion and I found B is not tied to conclusion
because more production does not means more export

I am not doubting the correct answer.I am just trying to make my thought process in sync with gmat.

[RonPurewal]

Gaurav, you do know that the goal here is to weaken the argument, right?

Just checking. Seems to me you're trying to find something to strengthen it.

[gauravtyagigmat]

Gaurav, you do know that the goal here is to weaken the argument, right?

Just checking. Seems to me you're trying to find something to strengthen it.

no no ..i know we need to weak politician's argument.
See if we have a another way of improving export, which is perfect match with premise.

Even we are trying to weak the part in which politician is proposing to weak the curency and if we have another method which will certainly improve export.Politician's argument to weak currency gets automatically weaken.

And why we should choose option B in which improvment of export is not certain.Politician is asking to weak currency only to improve export.

I think i have put so much brain in this question that now i am feeling stressed out about this question.oh my god :)

[RonPurewal]

no no ..i know we need to weak politician's argument.
See if we have a another way of improving export,

Whoa, no.

Let's say I tell you "Drinking rubbing alcohol will kill you."

If I also tell you "Jumping from a skyscraper will kill you", that certainly doesn't make my first statement any weaker.

[supreet0405]

Hi,

I have one question. what if the last sentence, that is the premise and conclusion, stated, "Now some politicians are saying that, the only way to cause another similarly sized increase in exports is that the government allow the pundra to become weak again.

Then will the E option be better than B?

Can some expert please explain?

Regards,
Supreet Singh

[RonPurewal]

If you did that, then you'd have, in essence, a passage that says "X" and an answer choice that says "not X".
That's not how the questions work. They're not going to weaken something by saying the opposite of that thing. Instead, they'll weaken things from new angles——things that aren't at all considered in the original argument.

[RonPurewal]

More importantly, don't try to edit the questions. Really... don't do it.
Making your own analogies of the problems——using the same logic as the original, but with more intuitive subject material——has value. Trying to edit GMAC's problems? Yeah, don't.

If you edit a CR problem, you're almost certainly going to produce something that doesn't work the way GMAC's problems work, and is thus irrelevant to this exam.
(If you could edit the questions effectively and in a way that genuinely simulates the test, you'd already be getting all of them correct!)

[ArchitG318]

Hi Ron,
I am unable to digest choice B :
My reasoning is that :
If the currency is depreciated then even if the manufacturers are working at their peak levels ,there would be an incentive for them to export and this
would increase exports.
I don't think that i am assuming here that manufacturers would increase exports it is logical that to gain more they would definitely export more than selling in domestic markets.

Please tell me what am i missing here

[RonPurewal]

two major problems here.

1/
MOST IMPORTANTLY
if you're going to find fault with this answer choice, then you MUST then claim ANOTHER choice as the correct answer.

...so which choice are you trying to support?

[RonPurewal]

2/
you seem to be inferring that the manufacturers would receive a higher price from overseas buyers.
that isn't the situation here.
the situation here is this:
• the price of stuff in darfir's currency is the same as always.
• when darfir's currency is 'weak', this means that people in other countries can TRADE those other countries' currency for MORE of darfir's currency.
• so, for people who hold other countries' currency, darfir's products become 'a bargain'.
• for people dealing in darfir's currency—including the manufacturers—there is no perceptible difference.

...and, in case you're thinking 'maybe they raise the price accordingly?'—nope. in stating that the goods become 'a bargain on the world market', the argument implies that the price HAS NOT increased with respect to the domestic currency.