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

It is currently 31 Oct 2014, 03:33

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

Krenland s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 78
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 3

Krenland s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2009, 06:49
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:28) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in
many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are
banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to
be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies
but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce
cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a
very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies
to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition
in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their
raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of
shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in
recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from
wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2009, 09:17
I go for 'C'.
To weaken we have to attack conclusion . Argument's conclusion is 'Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.' Imported steel is low-priced and will allow industrial employment in Krenland to remain competitive in international competition in both domestic and export markets. Thus cheap imported steel benefits industrial employment and weaken conclusion.
What is the official answer?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 306
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 15

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2009, 10:10
vituz wrote:
I go for 'C'.
To weaken we have to attack conclusion . Argument's conclusion is 'Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.' Imported steel is low-priced and will allow industrial employment in Krenland to remain competitive in international competition in both domestic and export markets. Thus cheap imported steel benefits industrial employment and weaken conclusion.
What is the official answer?


Agree, ans is C

Reducing cheap steel imports will affect other industries who use steel as a major raw material, and thereby affect employment. For the benefit of other industries who face severe competition, such favor of reducing imports should not be done for the steel industry
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 3

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2009, 10:15
ankur55 wrote:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?

A. Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
B. The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
C. For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.
D. Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.
E. Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.


I would say (C). Although it does not weaken the claim that the local steel industry would benefit, it does undermine the conclusion that industrial employment would benefit, since increased steel prices would reduce their pricing competitiveness.

(A) Out of scope, we're talking about K's domestic markets.
(B) Irrelevant, K's steel industry is still hurt.
(D) Again irrelevant, the original statement says "WHATEVER the cause", the gov should protect local steel. So listing an alternative cause to cheap imports does not weaken the argument.
(E) Irrelevant for the same reason as above.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 909
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 18

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2009, 11:12
Agree with C.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 161
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2009, 04:31
C makes sense.What is the OA?
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

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

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2009, 07:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
Great explanation found from the net:


[Reveal] Spoiler:
Answer : C


The author says that there are 2 reasons why the Govt should take measure to cut cheap steel imports. The 2 reasons cite that Krenland’s steelmakers are suffering because of the imports.

Now, to weaken this, the answer choice should show that there is some advantage to Krenland’s steelmakers because of the imports. This advantage is given in choice C.
Othere choices can safely be considered 'out of scope'.


Choice C says that for many Krenlandian manufacturers, steel is a significant part of their raw material costs. It means that having cheap steel imports actually helps these (many) Krenlandian manufacturers because they are getting steel (a significant part for them) at a cheaper cost. Now, if these imports are banned, then it will be a disadvantage for them - they probably might have to get steel from some other source at a higher cost.
_________________

Life is Tom;I am Jerry

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 160
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 11

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2009, 00:26
+1 for C
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 78
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 3

Re: Steelmakers [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2009, 00:27
irajeevsingh wrote:
+1 for C


OA is C
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2418
Followers: 284

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Krenland s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of [#permalink] New post 02 Jun 2014, 00:32
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.
Re: Krenland s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of   [#permalink] 02 Jun 2014, 00:32
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland’s steelmakers a DelSingh 0 24 Jul 2013, 08:55
1 Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland s steelmakers mymba99 18 22 May 2008, 06:18
1 Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland s steelmakers ttram 5 09 Jan 2008, 18:08
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland s steelmakers KC 10 02 Nov 2006, 21:23
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland s steelmakers chunjuwu 3 20 Dec 2004, 09:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Krenland s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.