Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 16 Sep 2014, 13:44

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Schools: Wharton..:)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 14

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2010, 06:27
conclusion – removing the tariff would SERIOUSLY hamper govt’s effort to reduce unemployment bcoz if high tariff;s are lifted thm ppl in the urban areas whr all the processing plants are thr would not get any business.

Option E - is the only viable option coz if the crops are not profitable thn farmers will migrate to cities and increase unemployment rates, however we do have to assume tht farmers migrating to cities will not find jobs!

option C- well if more people are growing thn processing ,thn if u remove the tarrif it still creates job shortages in THE URBAN area so it's no way weakening the conclusion .
_________________

" What [i] do is not beyond anybody else's competence"- warren buffett
My Gmat experience -http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-710-q-47-v-41-tips-for-non-natives-107086.html

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 241 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 29 Dec 2010, 14:11
very confusing one.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 20

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 14 Jan 2012, 04:21
cialit0506 wrote:
OA is E...

But, I still don't know why D is wrong :(


The whole point in the argument is about unemployment. As per D, there won;t be unemployment and hence it SUPPORTs government action.

About C:
More people are in farming whereas some people are in processing industry. Now, if by lifting the tariffs, those farmers are allowed to export, the remaining people would loose their jobs in the processing industry. Hence this option supports the govt action.

But in E: though it is talking about growing crops 'in general', in the absence of any other choice, this is considered as the 'best' option.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 09 Feb 2012, 15:06
KissGMAT wrote:
I Still feel D should be the answer.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

This scenerio is helping both farmers and processing units ( thus improving urban employment)


I think D is wrong because it says cashew processing in KernLand will benefit for the low price input and the unemployment there might not increase. However the argument focuses on urban unemployment. We can deduce that because the KernLand processing industry prosper, the urban processing industry go down because it cannot buy cashew from KernLand, then urban unemployment go up. --> strengthen the argument.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Do till 740 :)
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 105
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 460 Q35 V20
GPA: 3.6
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 18

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 13 Apr 2012, 22:50
I think this is what happens when we try to solve un official questions

We narrow down to C and E

though E is better i eliminated it cos it was talking about crops and not specifically cashew.

We could argue whether cashew comes under crop or not and whether just cos more people are involved in crops does it mean that cashew is also part of it?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

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

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2012, 01:47
shankar245 wrote:
I think this is what happens when we try to solve un official questions

We narrow down to C and E

though E is better i eliminated it cos it was talking about crops and not specifically cashew.

We could argue whether cashew comes under crop or not and whether just cos more people are involved in crops does it mean that cashew is also part of it?


Very Confusing ..I Still go with C ..need clarity
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 117
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 600 Q49 V23
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 15

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 22 Apr 2012, 00:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
KissGMAT wrote:
I Still feel D should be the answer.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew
processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

This scenerio is helping both farmers and processing units ( thus improving urban employment)

E is the answer, the reason for this is that, when the small farmers in kerland leave off their lands and into the city, they are actually adding up to the unemployment number, thus this may be the alternative reason for the argument which says that removing the tariff hampers the government's effort to reduce unemployment numbers. Thus in actual sense it is not the removing of the tariff that causes an increase in the unemployment, but the migration of the farmers to the urban area that adds up to the unemployment number.
Hope this helps.


If you like my post, consider giving me some KUDOS !!!!! Like you I need them
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 49
Location: Sydney
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 7

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 08 Jul 2012, 21:41
cialit0506 wrote:
OA is E...

But, I still don't know why D is wrong :(


D is wrong because it doesn't weaken the argument.

The argument here is that removal of tariff will raise unemployment rate in urban areas (something that the government is trying to combat). The correct answers will be something that can show that urban unemployment will not worsen if the tariff on exports is lifted. D does not provide any argument along these lines. I felt that it is out of scope in fact.
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Pill Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 1559
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 288

Kudos [?]: 656 [1] , given: 6

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 06 Nov 2012, 09:27
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
reply2spg wrote:
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 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.



Argument: Removing tariff would reduce employment in urban areas where the domestic processing plants are

Support: Domestic processing plants buy the unprocessed cashew nuts at a "lower" price, thanks to the high tariff that is imposed when the unprocessed cashew nuts are exported out of the country and sold to foreigners


Weakening strategies:
1) Opposite Argument
2) Opposite Support
3) Discredit the link between support and argument

Here, my initial hunch is that the "support" is not necessarily linked to the "argument". The keyword is employment. How are domestic processing plants' buying cashew nuts at a discounted price...how is that linked to employment? Specifically, "urban" employment.

If we look at (E), we DO talk specifically about urban when they mention movement of farmers into the cities.
(E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

If (E) is true...then when import tariff is REMOVED then farmers DO PROFIT. If farmers profit, we know they don't MOVE into the cities, they instead stay on the farms. So in this case, since they don't go into the city, we do not have a lot of unemployed farmers in the city. And thus, the employment rate stays healthy.

So from the beginning, we may think of (E) as saying due to lack of profitable crop, farmers are entering cities. Presumably they are unemployed and this reduces employment rate in the city. But THEN, import tariffs are removed, and suddenly we HAVE a profitable crop. Thus will keep farmers on their farm, away from the cities and employment rates in the city are not affected. Thus the government's efforts to INCREASE urban employment is NOT affected - which is opposite the conclusion reached in the passage.
_________________


... and more


Image What's Inside GMAT Pill?

Zeke Lee, GMAT Pill Study Method (Study Less. Score More.)


GMAT Pill Reviews | GMAT PILL Free Practice Test

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 91
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

Kernland cashew nuts [#permalink] New post 10 Apr 2013, 01:32
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 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.
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2402
Followers: 287

Kudos [?]: 2413 [0], given: 693

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 10 Apr 2013, 02:58
Expert's post
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 91
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 10 Apr 2013, 03:48
carcass wrote:
Merged similar topic.

See the above explanation.

regards


The forum automatically merges them or you merged them?
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 32
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 18

Re: Kernland cashew nuts [#permalink] New post 17 Apr 2013, 00:22
score780 wrote:
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 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.


Remember for CR questions that involve weakening or strengthening we need to focus on the argument (conclusion)

Conclusion: 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

So we're looking for a statement that will weaken the argument that removing the tariff's would hamper the effort to reduce unemployment.

Remember in CR questions all the statements in the passage are considered true unless otherwise stated.

Facts:
- The tariff's are driving the farmers to sell the cashews to domestic processing plants at lower than world market prices.
- If the tariff's were removed the farmers could sell at higher prices to world markets and profit more.

A.) Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics. This doesn't tell us anything about the unemployment issue in the conclusion. It implies that the by-products of the cashews are keeping other plants open (the paints and plastics), so this will strengthen the argument slightly, but even still it's a stretch to infer that.

B.) Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants. This tells us that other countries governments are subsidizing processing plants to keep them open. This is a useless statement that neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

C.) More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them. This statement tells you about the ratio to farmers to processors. Farmers>Processors. This has no impact on the unemployment of the processors if the tariff's were removed. It only tells you if the tariff's were removed the smaller party would be impacted more, which is still undesirable. If we had 50,000 farmers and 49,500 processors, it's still a huge loss for Kernland and this statement could still be satisfied.

D.) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices. This statement strengthens the argument of the author. The tariff's MUST stay in place so that the Kernland processors can sell the cashews at a competitive price. This is the opposite of what we're looking for.

E.) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities. BINGO! Exactly what we're looking for. It hits on both of our facts from the passage and finds another cause for the unemployment problem other than the conclusion that was stated. Fact from passage: The cashew sells are not profitable to the farmers. Effect - Because of this the farmers are coming into the city adding to the unemployment problem. If the tariff's were removed, the farmers could farm cashews and sell them for a higher profit, which would prevent them from moving into the urban areas creating less competition for jobs, which would lower the unemployment.
1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1064
Location: United States
Followers: 121

Kudos [?]: 1274 [1] , given: 119

Premium Member
Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 13 Aug 2013, 14:16
1
This post received
KUDOS
Quote:
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 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.


Hi 2013gmat. I'm glad to help.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

The logic of the question is:

- High tariff on the export --> nuts are sold to domestic processing plants which are in urban area --> unemployment rate in urban area reduces
- Remove high tariff on the export --> nuts are sold to world market --> fewer job in processing plants --> unemployment rate in urban area.

The conclusion: Remove high tariff leads to high unemployment in urban.
Assumption: high tariff affects unemployment rate directly.

In order to weaken the conclusion, we have to scenarios:
(1) Attack the conclusion: Remove high tariff --> unemployment rate in urban will not be high. This is a extreme case, which undermine the conclusion completely (100%)
(2) Attack the assumption: There is another reason leading to high unemployment in urban. Thus, the removing of high tariff is not the main cause. On the other hand, the unemployment rate in urban will not be affected by the high tariff –OR-- the removing of high tariff.

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Wrong. Out of scope.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Wrong. Out of scope. We only talk about Kernland.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Wrong. Out of scope. We do not have information about the proportion between people farming cashew and people processing cashew. Thus, the ratio does not help to weaken.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
Wrong. Out of scope. We do not talk about how much cashew processors earn. Just focus on the relationship between “high tariff” and “unemployment in urban”.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
Correct. Only E makes sense. Because E shows that the main cause leading to unemployment in urban is the lack of profitable crops. When the high tariff still exists –OR-- is removed, if the farmers earn too little from their crops, they will not have motivation to continue farming. They will move to cities, unemployment rate in urban is still high.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed   [#permalink] 13 Aug 2013, 14:16
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed piyushksharma 1 21 Apr 2012, 11:39
1 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed raviram80 5 27 Feb 2012, 21:50
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed alimad 6 15 Jun 2008, 17:35
12 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed jerrywu 12 27 Aug 2006, 03:07
9 Kernland and unprocessed cashews sdanquah 10 20 Sep 2004, 13:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ] 



cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.