Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]
27 Feb 2012, 21:50
83% (01:22) correct
16% (01:49) wrong based on 6 sessions
Could someone please help me answer below weaken the conclusion question
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 government'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 byproducts 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 enable 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 imposition of tax on exports will make the crop even less profitable. The farmers migration to urban areas continues resulting in less cashewnuts production. This will eventually reduce the employment in cashew processing plants in urban areas. Hence weaken the conclusion : government efforts to provide more and more employment in urban areas.
E pretty clearly. If the tariff is not lifted then unemployed cashew farmers would move to cities leading to higher unemployment anyway so it is pointless to remove the tariff to protect cashew processing plant jobs from the point of view of reducing urban unemployment.
@raviram80. The argument talks about urban unemployment and not overall (rural+urban) unemployment levels leading to C being out of scope.