Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 07:25

### 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 imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 10:33
C and E both seem to work but E is a better choice over C.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 171
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 05:29
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)
_________________

R E S P E C T

Finally KISSedGMAT 700 times 450 to 700 An exprience

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 197
Location: Prague
Schools: University of Economics Prague
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 06:29
OK E seems right.

Removed tarrif would hinder farmers from moving to urban area, as they would stay in the countryside in order to plant cashew - therefore help government to fight against unemployment.
_________________

You want somethin', go get it. Period!

Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 90
Schools: Wharton..:)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 14

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1057 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2010, 14:11
very confusing one.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

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.

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
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Status: Do till 740 :)
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Posts: 113
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 460 Q35 V20
GPA: 3.6
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 19

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
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]

### Show Tags

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
Intern
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 49
Location: Sydney
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 43

### Show Tags

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.
Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3091
Followers: 786

Kudos [?]: 6542 [0], given: 1012

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2013, 02:58
Merged similar topic.

See the above explanation.

regards
_________________
Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 91
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 43

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 32
Location: United States (NC)
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10538
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2014, 05:23
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.
Intern
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

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

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2014, 08:22
Here are my thoughts on this question:

D --> D weakens the argument of the effect of tariffs (imposing the tariff might also help cashew processors in the urban areas and might not cause unemployment). So this essentially concludes that tarriffs should not necessarily be removed, thereby weakens the argument that they should.

E--> E weakens the argument of a single effect of urban unemployment. Meaning unemployment might occur outside urban areas, still GIVEN that the tariffs are removed, causing people to move to urban areas and thereby increasing urban unemployment.

OK, so what are we answering? Technically we should assume that tariffs ARE removed, and find the argument that weakens the unwanted effects of it. D finds the argument why tariffs shouldn't be removed, so doesn't exactly answer the question. Therefore E answers the question of "if tariffs ARE removed, what will still cause urban unemployment"

Having said that though, there is no indication whatsoever (in the text) that even if unprofitable crops are driving farmers into urban areas, that this would automatically result in an increase of urban unemployment. So the only logic I'm still missing here is why are farmers automatically unemployed when they move to the city? How did you guys determine this connection?
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2014
Posts: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: ISB '18
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: -16 [0], given: 57

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2015, 19:47
Clearly A B AND D are out of scope.

with c and e what i can see is C is a general statement whereas E clearly says that more people are moving to cities because of lack of profitability and thus is unemployment may rise ...
_________________

KUDOS pls if you like My Post

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2015
Posts: 6
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V32
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.53
Followers: 0

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

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2016, 08:35
chandru42 wrote:
Argument: removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

how to weaken the above argument?
by Proving:
tariff
=> do not reduce urban unemployment
=> increase the urban unemployment

E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
==> Because of tariff, farmers are moving to urban areas and are increasing the unemployment figures of urban

Got this explanation from another thread

Maybe this a dumb question, but how do we assume that they will remain unemployed once moving to the city? Maybe I'm overthinking this, but when I read this, without giving it any conscious thought, I assumed that they moved to the city to find employment.... otherwise, why even bother moving if they'll be unemployed either way?

If I rephrased this as "A lack of cool climate is driving an increasing number of people from Florida to Michigan", I think almost all of you would unconciously assume that they were able to avoid the heat and find a better climate in Michigan".

I chose E, but none of these seemed like a good answer.
Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 140
Schools: Tepper '18
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 616

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2016, 23:54
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.

The conclusion is - removing tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment.

D - talks about urban processing plants and how they benefit if the tariffs are imposed - but nothing is said about alternate possible reasons for urban unemployment.
We need to weaken the argument that - if the tariffs are removed urban unemployment would increase. This can only be done if there is a situation where urban unemployment would increase even if the the tariffs are imposed.
option E talks about a scenario where tariffs are imposed and the farmers are moving to cities (due to loses) and hence creating an added pressure on the urban employment opportunities available. Thus increasing urban unemployment.

Hope this helps.
Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 140
Schools: Tepper '18
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 616

Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2016, 23:56
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)

The conclusion is - removing tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment.

D - talks about urban processing plants and how they benefit if the tariffs are imposed - but nothing is said about alternate possible reasons for urban unemployment.
We need to weaken the argument that - if the tariffs are removed urban unemployment would increase. This can only be done if there is a situation where urban unemployment would increase even if the the tariffs are imposed.
option E talks about a scenario where tariffs are imposed and the farmers are moving to cities (due to loses) and hence creating an added pressure on the urban employment opportunities available. Thus increasing urban unemployment.

Hope this helps.
Re: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed   [#permalink] 02 Apr 2016, 23:56

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 46 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed 3 21 Apr 2012, 11:39
2 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed 6 27 Feb 2012, 21:50
19 Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured 37 17 Nov 2009, 19:32
Country X imposes heavy tariffs on imported manufactured 14 01 Aug 2009, 12:59
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed 6 15 Jun 2008, 17:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by