In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much

tvrs09

Its nowhere mentioned anything about some other country other than Country J & K as well. Just because there is always a possibility that Country J, can import from Country K, it is a potential weakener.

Official Explanation
The question asks for information that would "weaken" the claim, making this a Weaken question. However, the EXCEPT is important. That indicates that the four wrong answers will weaken the argument. The correct answer will not; it will either strengthen the argument or be irrelevant. According to the stimulus, the government of Country K claims that its direct support payment program was responsible for raising the prices of cotton. The evidence is that the cotton prices happened to have rebounded after the program began.

This argument is causal in nature: the government believes that its program caused the increase in prices. In order to weaken such an argument, you can show that either the causality is reversed or that some other factor caused the increase in prices. Reversing causality does not make sense here; increased prices would not have caused the program to take place. So, expect that the four wrong answers will suggest alternative explanations for the increased prices. The correct answer will not.

(D) is correct, as it has no effect on the government's argument. What farmers did with the land is irrelevant. As long as they didn't use it for cotton, the author still has an argument: the program could be responsible for the higher cotton prices.

(A) weakens the argument by suggesting it was inflation, and not the program, that caused prices to rise.

(B) and (E) weaken the argument by suggesting that price increases could have been caused by increased demand, not the government program. With (B), cotton was needed by the new textile company. With (E), cotton was needed by a neighboring country that lost its cotton crops.

(C) does not provide an exact other reason for the increase in prices, but it does suggest that the government program was not responsible. If almost no farmers took cotton acreage out of production, they didn't take part in the program. That means there must have been another cause of the increased prices.

TAKEAWAY: When someone claims that one plan was responsible for a certain result, that argument can most easily be weakened by raising other possible causes.

they have mentioned other agricultural purpose . what difference does it makes if the farmer used it for farming anything other than cotton .

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.