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

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 04:06

### 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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 424 [8] , given: 2

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

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2009, 18:56
8
KUDOS
39
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:22) correct 42% (01:32) wrong based on 1734 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 1009 [1] , given: 1

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2009, 20:32
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 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.

Not convinced by the OA

The conclusion suggests that the tariff should NOT be removed. However, if not removed the tariff, more farmers could NOT profit by growing cashews, increasing the number of growers in Kernland off their land and into the cities. E clearly weakens the argument.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 282
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2009, 20:41
sondenso 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.

Not convinced by the OA

The conclusion suggests that the tariff should NOT be removed. However, if not removed the tariff, more farmers could NOT profit by growing cashews, increasing the number of growers in Kernland off their land and into the cities. E clearly weakens the argument.

Agree with E
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 409 [2] , given: 0

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Feb 2009, 01:36
2
KUDOS
Definitely E. Here we r concerned abt unemployment in urban areas. E mentions that bcos of lack of emloyment opportunities many youths frm villages r forced 2 move 2 cities 4 employment which adds to the unemployment scenario in C. so if tehse youths will have ample opportunity in village itself, the problem in urban areas will be solved.

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.

Not convinced by the OA
Intern
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 41
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 08:29
I like the explanation on E.

But, isn't D an equally good answer?

D argues for the removal of the tariff, as the processors stand to earn more from the tariff removal. And if they earn more, surely the urban unemployment would be reduced, right?

Please let me know of your opinions on this, thanks.
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 849
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 310 [0], given: 106

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 08:42
E it is.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2009, 09:54
It is E for me.
Plz post the OA
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 230
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 97 [3] , given: 13

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 12:34
3
KUDOS
I would go with E.

And the explanation is:
Removing tariff increases urban unemployment

What if there is another scenario which increases urban unemployment. That would weaken the argument.
In E, "lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities" increases urban unemployment. So we found an alternative cause for an effect.
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 155
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2009, 20:10
E for me since the lack of profitable crops is driving the rural folk to the city...
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 318
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 13

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2009, 23:19
But isnt "A lack of profitable crops" too generic...the argument here talks about cashew nuts and not crops in generic. Am I thinking too much??

Between C and E. Due to this reason my pick was C.
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Posts: 182
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [1] , given: 5

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2009, 01:59
1
KUDOS
After seeing every comment, I am very confused as I Picked 'C' as the answer. Aint it work the following way?

Cause------------> Effect

Removing the tariff------------> serious hamper of the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment ~= Increase in the number of Unemployed people in urban area.

Now, in case of E, if the tariff is removed, farmers will have at least one profitable crop, thus will not move(or move little) to urban area. So they will not move to urban area. However, the urban processing folks will still loose jobs as most of the cashew nuts will be imported to outside (Is the logic flawed?). In short, here Cause-----------> effects, so E actually strengthens the argument.

From another point of view, E shows that if there is tariff (the prevailing situation continues), the number of farmers will increase in urban area for the movement and probably will create more unemployment (though not mentioned specifically that the migrated farmers will be jobless, I am taking it as a general assumption), thereby worsening the unemployment situation. In short, Absence of Cause-----------> Creates the effect.

I am totally confused as how to attack the argument (Reading the CR Bible too much I guess)

Now for 'C',

Even if you remove the tariff, the effect will be minimal as more people are engage in farming than producing. We may say that governments effort to reduce unemployment in urban area will not be "seriously hampered".

Please help me find the error in reasoning on choice 'E'. What is the OA?
Intern
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 41
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2009, 05:50
OA is E...

But, I still don't know why D is wrong
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 250
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 310 [2] , given: 29

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 12:35
2
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 government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment
over the next five years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

C. More people in Kernland 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.

Well IMO C and E is negative choices but C is irrevelant to the conclusion. The conclusion states,'' removing
the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment
over the next five years'' . I may ask what's the reason for this urban unemployment. Then this conclusion would be weaken. IMO E
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Manager
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 142
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 33 [11] , given: 50

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2009, 00:30
11
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1053 [0], given: 2

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2010, 01:54
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

that helped
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 572 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2010, 08:32
yes E it is.
Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 06:35
Explaination of E seems correct
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### 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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### 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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink]

### 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!

Re: CR: Kernland   [#permalink] 03 Sep 2010, 06:29

Go to page    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

# Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.