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 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

Agree with E

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.

It is E for me.
Plz post the OA

E for me since the lack of profitable crops is driving the rural folk to the city...

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?

that helped
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Explaination of E seems correct

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