In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much

Hi ,

Direct payment is the term used in the Agriculture , which means government gives payments directly to the farmers to support their incomes and are paid directly to the farmers.
Hope dis helps

Try and fail but never fail to try.

How does D strengthen the claim? I think it has no effect on the claim unless you make further assumptions. It clearly says "they were not allowed to use the land for any other purpose"..how does this strengthen the claim of gov about price increase?

According to me - D is correct because it does not weaken the claim.

What do experts say?

I reached D too through elimination.





I disagree with warrior123's explanation though since the question states that the farmers forego their acreage IF and only if they opt to receive the support payments.

Here's my explanation,
In order to strengthen the government's claims, enough farmers must opt in to receive direct payments in order to allow the cotton production to fall. This could only happen if opting in for such a plan is beneficial for the farmer since the government cannot force farmers into the plan.

Therefore, the government's subsidy should be enough to make it worth it for the farmer because a farmer could either keep producing cotton and opt out of receiving payments or he could opt in for the support payment and produce something else on 25% of the land. But since the government explicitly bars this from happening that extra 25% land is basically lying empty. Hence the subsidy is enough for the farmer so that he doesn't have to grow anything on the unused land which implies less effort for him but with the same payout, which he would obviously prefer and hence opt in for the plan.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, hope it makes sense.

How can A be eliminated??
A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.

When there is inflation, the price increase is there in all items, just not limited to cotton alone. Since we are concerned with gratis payments for not growing cotton, Choice A has nothing to do with it. It is infact outside the bounds of the govt’s claim

A.Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation. weakens, if inflation has increased, then the price will evidently increase, the govt. action cannot be held responsible for price stabilization
B.In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.weakens. If the demand of the cotton increased, then price were back to level. There is no role of govt.
C.Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.If farmers refused to take acreage out, then Govt. program had nothing to do further
D.As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.Yes, this explains reduced supply, hence price were back at level
E.A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton.Weakens, Drought prevented over supply, hence prevented price plunge

Unfortunately, I am not so good in CR, even at the 600-700 level.

P.S. In weaken except questions the answer either strengthens or has no effect on the argument.

Yes, I agree with you completely. In general, if a question asks "all of the following weaken the argument EXCEPT..." then you shouldn't be looking for an answer choice which *strengthens* the argument. Sure, if one answer strengthens the argument, it must be correct, but very often there will just be one answer choice which is completely irrelevant to the argument. I'd imagine most test takers (myself included) answer such questions by process of elimination, identifying four answers which certainly do weaken, leaving a fifth answer which must be correct.

In Country K in the year 2000, farmers produced so much cotton that the market could not absorb all of it and the price of cotton fell precipitously. In the next year, the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production. By mid-year 2002, cotton prices in Country K were back to the levels seen in 1999. The government claimed that its direct support payments were responsible for the rebound in prices.

Each of the following, if true, would weaken the government's claim, EXCEPT:

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton

hi,
conclusion here is :
because of DIRECT SUPPORT PAYMENT(DSP)===>PRICE INCREASED(PI)

My approach in all except question is to read and understand argument and then eliminate the wrong answers.

(A)Between 1999 and mid-year 2002, Country K experienced rapid inflation.(inflation always increases the prices of all the products....hence its not DSP rather INFLATION which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(B)In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>When demand of something increases PRICE also increases....hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.(NO FARMERS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF DSP ...HENCE THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER FACTORS FOR PI AND NOT DSP)===>WEAKENS
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.==>DOESNT AFFECTS (CORRECT)
(E)A large drought hit in Country J, next to Country K, wiping out that nation's cotton crops and causing a need to import cotton(AGAIN DEMAND INCREASED IN NEIGHBOUR COUNTRY===>THEREFORE PI......hence its not DSP rather DEMAND which caused PI)==>WEAKENS

hope it helps

For (B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.(FACTORY OPENED ==>DEMAND FOR COTTON INCREASED ===>
If the demand of a product rises, then the prices are reduced.. Its an inverse relation b/w demand and price... However, the OA is D ,but i don't know the exact reason to eliminate B
For (C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.(If this happens, that means there is scarcity of resources, that means limited products are there\ in the market and would lead to rise in price of that product i.e. cotton, it means the direct supply payement was not responsible for price rise)===>WEAKENS


I am still not able to understand why D is the answer...

hi,
If demand goes up, and supply stays the same, price goes up

If demand goes down, and supply stays the same, price goes down.

now in the case it is not given that suply is increasing or decreasing ....so we must assume supply is constant as in previous years.
now if you come to your B OPTION
(B) In the beginning of 2001, a large textile plant opened in Country K to take advantage of the country's low cotton prices.===> As demand goes up ....price will automatically shoot up...
what you are thinking is ....iff price goes up===>then demand will go down==>in this case its inverse relationship....its not the other way round.
hope it makes sense.

now option C
(C)Almost all farmers refused to take any of their cotton acreage out of production.
FIRST of all taking out 25 acreage means===>let suppose you produce 100 cotton ==>this you always put in market for sale......now if government wants you to take out 25 of them from market ...then you will keep only 75 cotton in market.....but if you dont follow government order then it means you are putting all your 100 cotton in the market.....hence there is no scarcity if you dont follow government orders.
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton...hence there is no scarcity.....but as conclusion of argument is still the products price ROSE...then its for sure that this rise is not because of direct supply payment ..because nobody followed that...hence it weakens...

in all this question if 4 answer optins are weakening....then correct answer will either STRENGTHEN the argument or WILL NOT AFFECT(neutral) the argument.HERE OPTION D is neutral to the argument.

hope it helps

If we could prove that most of the farmers didn't settle for the direct support payment and rather sold their yield to the large textile plant and that this was the reason for reversing the plummeting price of cotton,and not the direct support system,we can safely eliminate option B. Imagine that the current reduced rate of cotton was 100 $ in some unit of weight at the beginning of 2001. Now, the large textile plant would want to buy a lot of cotton at the reduced price(take advantage ), and this would help clear a large volume of cotton already present. Gradually, there will be a point, where the actual volume left in the market would stabilize and would be good enough to be absorbed by the market,and ergo the price of cotton will stop falling further. In a distant case where the textile plant absorbs all the cotton, even then, the price of cotton would eventually rise, owing to the scarcity.

Thanks for the explanation for B.
But, are you sure that since no information about supply is mentioned, though we need to assume that supply is constant..????

For option C, i want to add few more points...
now in the option it is given...alll farmers REFUSED....means they are not taking out any cotton... we cannot judge whether there is any scarcity in the existing market or not... Maybe the cotton in the current market is already at a considerable level or it might be low or high.. Since we know nothing about it, we cannot make any judgment... I was wrong stating that there would be scarcity of resources/cotton in the prevailing market.

What i understood for option C is that "since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied..

Thanks for you explanantion on the concept of "acreage out of production", i read the CR so fast that sometimes i miss crucial points...

Can you explain option D..??? That would be great help..!!!!

ACCORDING TO OPTION D:
(D)As a condition to receive government support payments, farmers were prohibited from using the old cotton acreage for other agricultural purposes.

Let suppose if farmers take out 25 percent of their cotton(Which can be done if they do not not farm on the 25 percent of available land)===>then government will pay them X dollars
now according to option D if Farmer wants to get that X dollars farmers need to satisfy two condition
1)they have to take out 25 percent of the cotton (stated in the argument)==>which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land
2)they are prohibited to use that 25 percent of land for any other crop farming also.(stated in option D)
so this thing doesn't tells anything about price increase...hence as i said earlier it is neutral to the conclusion.

hope it helps

Great explanation... Thanks...!!!

what exactly do you mean by this sentence ??
"which is possible only if they dont farm on the 25 percent of the land"

I could not understand it completely...

Rest i got why D is eleminated... Thanks a ton..!!!!

you are welcome
the government of Country K introduced direct support payments to any cotton producers that would take 25 or more percent of their cotton acreage out of production

i wanted to say regarding the highlited part===>if farmers have 100 acres land===>so they have to stop farming on 25 or more acre of land......to get direct support payments.

Ok... Got it.. Thanks..!!!!

Is the below reasoning correct to eliminate C..
"since farmers refused to bring cotton acreage out of production that means no cotton was provided to the market by farmers, hence, government orders were not able to apply to the cottons by farmers. That weakens option C, as no cotton( of farmers) in the market then to whom would the government orders be applied."