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

It is currently 19 Apr 2014, 14:41

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:
3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 558
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 38 [3] , given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2009, 18:56
3
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

53% (02:31) correct 46% (01:27) wrong based on 336 sessions
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
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 136
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [2] , given: 45

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2009, 00:30
2
This post received
KUDOS
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
1 KUDOS received
SVP
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1943
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 208 [1] , given: 1

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2009, 20:32
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.

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.
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 251
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 17 [1] , given: 29

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 19 Aug 2009, 12:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
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?

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 :)

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
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 [?]: 19 [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
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Pill Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 1360
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 255

Kudos [?]: 553 [1] , given: 5

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

1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 983
Location: United States
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 935 [1] , given: 116

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.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 283
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 20 Feb 2009, 20:41
sondenso wrote:
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.

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
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1301
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 21 Feb 2009, 01:36
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.

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.

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

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 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
Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 106

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 06 Aug 2009, 08:42
E it is.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

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

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 06 Aug 2009, 09:54
It is E for me.
Plz post the OA
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 230
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 07 Aug 2009, 12:34
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
Manager
Status: Applying
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Posts: 159
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.65
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 07 Aug 2009, 20:10
E for me since the lack of profitable crops is driving the rural folk to the city...
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2009
Posts: 317
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 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
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Posts: 186
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 5

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 09 Aug 2009, 01:59
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
Intern
Joined: 01 May 2009
Posts: 41
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 09 Aug 2009, 05:50
OA is E...

But, I still don't know why D is wrong :(
SVP
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 171 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 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


SVP
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1564
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 6

Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 01 Sep 2010, 08:32
yes E it is.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 143
Followers: 1

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

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: Kernland [#permalink] New post 02 Sep 2010, 06:35
Explaination of E seems correct
Re: CR: Kernland   [#permalink] 02 Sep 2010, 06:35
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Popular new posts 9 Kernland and unprocessed cashews sdanquah 10 20 Sep 2004, 13:38
Popular new posts 12 Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed jerrywu 12 27 Aug 2006, 03:07
New posts Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed alimad 6 15 Jun 2008, 17:35
New posts Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed raviram80 4 27 Feb 2012, 21:50
New posts Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed piyushksharma 1 21 Apr 2012, 11:39
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    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ] 



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®.