Q16 - With decreased production this year

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument looks something like the following

Something occurs = with decreased production prices have increased

Analysts' explanation = very little of the rice is sold on the world market

The analysts' explanation is the conclusion of the argument. To weaken the analysts' explanation in this question we'll need to find a weakness in the argument's reasoning. Sometimes, other questions similar in structure will undermine the explanation by providing an equally likely alternative explanation. None of the answers do that here, so we need to look at the reasoning within the argument for a possible weakness found in an answer choice.

(A) is irrelevant. What rice-importing countries do after the price rises doesn't explain why the price had risen in the first place.
(B) supports the analysts' explanation by making it so that people who would have gotten their rice from the government now must find it on the free-market. Thereby further increasing demand.
(C) undermines the analysts' explanation by making it so that when production falls governments release more rice into the world market, thus, increasing supply and making it less likely that price increases were the result of shortages.
(D) supports the analysts' explanation by saying that in times of decreased production, local governments purchase rice on the world market, thus reducing supply even further.
(E) supports the analysts' explanation by making it so that rice-importing countries cannot compensate with alternative crops when rice production is low.

[cyruswhittaker]

The correct is choice C, but choice C says "exports some of the rice." This seemed to weak of a statement to really attack the position. The analysts blame the price increase on the fact that governments control "most" of the rest, so how would the fact that the governments export "some" of it be strong enough to call into question the analysts’ explanation?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I agree that answer choice (C) doesn't disprove the conclusion. But it does call it into question. Think of the argument as saying that when there was a shortage of rice and the prices rose, it must have been the shortage that caused the increased price. Answer choice (C) would challenge that argument, by suggesting that when the prices rose, there actually wasn't a shortage. Remember the commercial markets only have a small percentage of total world production. Any additional amount from these governments could easily have a big impact.

In short, I know answer choice (C) isn't strong, but it's good enough. Especially knowing that for weakening questions, "slightly weakening" is still "weakening."

Hope that helps!

[HadyEMatar]

I was leaning towards C also, but the word "free grain markets" put me off. What does free in this situation mean?Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

"free grain markets" refer to markets where rice is sold and where there is not governmentally controlled and distributed grain production. The analysts blame the rise in prices on the fact that so many markets are governmentally controlled - not free grain markets.

Does that answer your question?

[gplaya123]

Actually, I thought the first sentence of the stimulus was the conclusion.
So, I thought this argument contained a causal relationship, where the analysis blames the government controlling the grain for the local consumption is the "cause" that increases the price of the rice, as a result or an "effect."

As C says, if government sells the rice to some countries in times of creased rice production, then perhaps "governmental control" seems less likely to be the sole cause of the rice price soaring, which is what the analysts have claimed.

So I thought C shows that there is a possibility that there could be other possibilities other than the governmental control as the sole cause for the financial problem.

Any Thought?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Actually, I thought the first sentence of the stimulus was the conclusion.
So, I thought this argument contained a causal relationship, where the analysis blames the government controlling the grain for the local consumption is the "cause" that increases the price of the rice, as a result or an "effect."

The second sentence is definitely the conclusion. The first sentence is an observation that is then explained in the second sentence. Be on the lookout for this very common argument form.

As C says, if government sells the rice to some countries in times of creased rice production, then perhaps "governmental control" seems less likely to be the sole cause of the rice price soaring, which is what the analysts have claimed.

Which is exactly the conclusion we are seeking to undermine, nice work!

So I thought C shows that there is a possibility that there could be other possibilities other than the governmental control as the sole cause for the financial problem.

In fact, answer choice (C) suggests there is probably something else that should explain the increased prices, since they didn't really see a reduction in rice that is sold in the freely traded market.

[WaltGrace1983]

This is one of the few I got wrong on this section. Sometimes when I review it hits me right in the face...this is not one of those times


Let me see if I can understand this correctly. So we have the following three points:
1) There is decreased production of rice --> prices have increased
2) Analysts say that this is because very little rice is sold commercially while govt. takes the rest for local consumption
3) Changes in production can significantly affect rice available for the world

When I read the argument initially, I thought that this was it:

(Very little rice is sold commercially while govt. takes the rest for local consumption)
-->
(Changes in production can significantly affect rice available for the world)

That is, because of the current rice situation (in which there is little rice to go around), small changes in production can really affect the rice available. I am a little confused why this is not the argument. So the actual argument is the following?:

Decreased production and prices have gone up
-->
It is because the government is controlling all of that rice!

I just don't understand why this is the argument (and maybe it's not - I could be misunderstanding this). Can someone please explain this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Think of this argument from the perspective of:

Evidence (phenomenon) => Conclusion (explanation)

The argument presents an explanation for why something happened. To see that this is the right approach, take a look at the question stem that asks us to undermine the analysts' explanation. Notice that the explanation is the part that states, "analysts blame the increase on the fact that..."

What was their explanation? Government control of a large share of rice distribution and very little rice available on the open market.

Hope that helps!

[katwoody]

Hi, I understand that option C undermines the argument that the price increase is due to the small percentage of rice available for sale commercially.
But I don't understand why option D is wrong. To me it's saying that the government that controls the rice crop would purchase it commercially, instead of just keeping the rice, which frees up the rice commercially to all the buyers because the government now also act as one of the buyers, the same as any rice importing countries. This frees up the amount of rice available on world markets, which would contradict the argument that the small amount of rice available on world markets was the reason for the price increase.

Please help! Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

But I don't understand why option D is wrong. To me it's saying that the government that controls the rice crop would purchase it commercially, instead of just keeping the rice, which frees up the rice commercially to all the buyers because the government now also act as one of the buyers, the same as any rice importing countries. This frees up the amount of rice available on world markets, which would contradict the argument that the small amount of rice available on world markets was the reason for the price increase.

Please help! Thanks!

Hi katwoody, happy to help!

I think you're misreading what answer choice (D) asserts. According to (D) governments that distribute rice within their country would, in the event of production shortfalls, purchase it commercially. That means that the rice available on the world market would be in greater demand and naturally put upward price pressure on rice sold on world markets. This answer choice strengthens the argument by turning around answer choice (C). Rather than sellers of rice on the open market (C), these governments are now buyers on the open market.

Hope that helps!

[ChentuoZ870]

Some reasoning differentiating supply and demand/buy might help to clarify this annoyingly tough question.

Since it is said that "analysts blame this increase...", so conclusion is:

Conclusion: price of the grain on world market increase.

And the reasoning is:
1.government controls most of the world production--->so little rice traded freely
2.so little rice traded freely--->slight changes in production significantly affecting the price
3.decreased production + slight changes in production significantly affecting the price--->price of the grain on world market increase

here, the decreased production is the initial dynamic, and the price increase is the final result.
The analysts' explanation focus on the supply side of the government activities that influence the rice price. It does not care if government (as a buyer accepting the price increase) buy rice from free traded market.

And with the reasoning above, let's see the choice.

(A):irrelevant. it describes an action later than price increase, and here the government acts as a buyer.
(B):strengthen. Under less production, government result in less supply for free traded rice.
(C):weaken. Under less production, government result in more supply for free traded rice.
(D):irrelevant. Under less production, government buy rice from the market, has no direct influence on supply for free traded rice.
(E):irrelevant. the issue here is rice, not other corps. And the government take no action influencing supply for free traded rice. And like (A), government acts as a buyer.