Kernland and unprocessed cashews : GMAT Verbal Section
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 08 Dec 2016, 08:34

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Kernland and unprocessed cashews

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 135
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 13:38
1
KUDOS
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the exports of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. if the tarriff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world markets prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. however, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tarriff would seriously hamper the goververnment's efforts to reduce urban unemployment over the nesxt five years

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument

C. more people in kenland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the Cities

Which is the correct answer, E or C
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 577
Location: San Jose, CA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 59 [1] , given: 0

Re: Kernland and unprocessed cashews [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 14:13
1
KUDOS
I will go with E
If E is correct, then it clearly says that the Govt is unable to identify the root cause of the unemployment problem. If tarriffs are lifted -> unemployment will reduce as people will be attracted to farming again. Hence imposing tarriffs will not help much in the goververnment's efforts to reduce unemployment. Instead ... it can get worse!
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Clara
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 17:18
1
KUDOS
Agreed. E
_________________

"Do or do not, there is no try."
-Yoda

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 348 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2004, 18:42
1
KUDOS
E weakens the statement. If famrers are going to cities as well, then concern should be focuse on urban employment rather than increasing farming profits.
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 135
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2004, 23:07
I thought the argument here is removing the tarriff would seriously hamper the goververnment's efforts to reduce urban unemployment over the nesxt five years. if there is a condition which shows that the government can remove the tarrif and have little consequence, as C demostrates, then that weekens the argument.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4302
Followers: 38

Kudos [?]: 418 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2004, 09:10
sdanquah wrote:
I thought the argument here is removing the tarriff would seriously hamper the goververnment's efforts to reduce urban unemployment over the nesxt five years. if there is a condition which shows that the government can remove the tarrif and have little consequence, as C demostrates, then that weekens the argument.

What tells you that the fact that more people working in the coutryside than will hurt the government only a little bit if the latter removes the tarriff? Since unprocessed cashews are what affect market prices, the processing of cashews at urban plants could have no incidence on world market prices. Removing the tarriff could unfairly favor rural areas to the expense of urban ones. Thus, the government plan of reducing unemployment rate in cities could be greatly reduced. There is just nothing that says there will be little consequence by removing the tarriff.
E is best as if workers now massively shift to urban areas, then urban unemployement will NOT be a concern anymore. Hence, removing tarriffs will increase export and will also decrease urban unemployment. This directly contradicts the whole argument
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Director
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 932
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 196 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2006, 14:13
1
KUDOS
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 governmentâ€™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 by-products 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.

The assumption is that the removal of the tariff will allow the farmers to sell at a higher price. therefore, they would grow more cashews. The result will be that the processing plants can't buy at those prices and will ahve to close down. I think the answer is D
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Posts: 252
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2006, 19:56
1
KUDOS
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 91
Location: Minneapolis
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2006, 22:24
1
KUDOS
E it should be.
C does not address the urban unemployment problem.
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2006, 06:07
1
KUDOS
I go with C.
This is because the argument says that if tariff is lifted, more people in urban centres will lose jobs. Here, author has assumed that most people are in the plants rather than being farmers. So if C is true, it weakens the argument
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2006, 07:22
1
KUDOS
I will go for E as the concern is about the unemployment in urban areas
Display posts from previous: Sort by