|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Posts: 72
Location: India
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 15
|
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much [#permalink]
 15 Aug 2012, 21:29
Question Stats:
46% (02:20) correct
53% (01:40) wrong based on 2 sessions
In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices. Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT: A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation. B.In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices. C.Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production. D.As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes. E.A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton. I dont understand how the OA is correct and in relation to premise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 18 May 2012
Posts: 9
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 1
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 21:54
It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 43
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 36
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 22:35
I did not understand the meaning of support payments. Can anyone explain, pls?
_________________
If you think you are lost, you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 18
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 22:45
ravstime wrote: I did not understand the meaning of support payments.
Can anyone explain, pls? Hi , Direct payment is the term used in the Agriculture , which means government gives payments directly to the farmers to support their incomes and are paid directly to the farmers. Hope dis helps  Try and fail but never fail to try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 139
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 37
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 23:30
warrior123 wrote: It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim. How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase? According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim. What do experts say?
_________________
Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 May 2011
Posts: 34
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.78
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 5
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
17 Aug 2012, 04:00
yashii9 wrote: warrior123 wrote: It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim. How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase? According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim. What do experts say? I reached D too through elimination. Quote: D - As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes. warrior123 wrote: It's D. Since Farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agri purposes, they are bound to either fore-go 25% of acreage and get support payments (or) loose it entirely. Hence this strengthens the Govt's claim. All other options, if true, clearly weaken the Govt's claim. I disagree with warrior123's explanation though since the question states that the farmers forego their acreage IF and only if they opt to receive the support payments. Here's my explanation, In order to strengthen the government's claims, enough farmers must opt in to receive direct payments in order to allow the cotton production to fall. This could only happen if opting in for such a plan is beneficial for the farmer since the government cannot force farmers into the plan. Therefore, the government's subsidy should be enough to make it worth it for the farmer because a farmer could either keep producing cotton and opt out of receiving payments or he could opt in for the support payment and produce something else on 25% of the land. But since the government explicitly bars this from happening that extra 25% land is basically lying empty. Hence the subsidy is enough for the farmer so that he doesn't have to grow anything on the unused land which implies less effort for him but with the same payout, which he would obviously prefer and hence opt in for the plan. Sorry for the long winded explanation, hope it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 93
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.04
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 7
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
17 Aug 2012, 11:08
How can A be eliminated??  A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 1987
Location: India
Followers: 130
Kudos [?]:
667
[0], given: 170
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
18 Aug 2012, 07:17
When there is inflation, the price increase is there in all items, just not limited to cotton alone. Since we are concerned with gratis payments for not growing cotton, Choice A has nothing to do with it. It is infact outside the bounds of the govt’s claim
_________________
” I truly believe in online learning, I have been a student in both an Ivy League school (brick and mortar) and in an online setting and I have learned 1,000 times more in an online setting. You do not have anyone there lecturing you and then you do the work, online you are made to do it all yourself. Amazing how different the results are. - Heather(a student)”
Alicia Helle, an online student at the UW, "Obtaining my degree online has been a blessing. With two small children, I am able to work when it is convenient for my family and me. I have nothing but positive comments and experiences from my time at UW-Stout.”
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Posts: 129
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
45
[0], given: 35
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
18 Aug 2012, 09:22
A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation. weakens, if inflation has increased, then the price will evidently increase, the govt. action cannot be held responsible for price stabilizationB.In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices. weakens. If the demand of the cotton increased, then price were back to level. There is no role of govt.C.Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production. If farmers refused to take acreage out, then Govt. program had nothing to do furtherD.As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes. Yes, this explains reduced supply, hence price were back at levelE.A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton. Weakens, Drought prevented over supply, hence prevented price plungeUnfortunately, I am not so good in CR, even at the 600-700 level. P.S. In weaken except questions the answer either strengthens or has no effect on the argument.
_________________
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
― Voltaire
Press Kudos, if I have helped.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 973
Location: Toronto
Followers: 167
Kudos [?]:
443
[0], given: 3
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott [#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 22:35
yashii9 wrote:
How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase?
According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim.
What do experts say? Yes, I agree with you completely. In general, if a question asks "all of the following weaken the argument EXCEPT..." then you shouldn't be looking for an answer choice which *strengthens* the argument. Sure, if one answer strengthens the argument, it must be correct, but very often there will just be one answer choice which is completely irrelevant to the argument. I'd imagine most test takers (myself included) answer such questions by process of elimination, identifying four answers which certainly do weaken, leaving a fifth answer which must be correct.
_________________
Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.
Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cott
[#permalink]
19 Aug 2012, 22:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
