Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States governmen

Hello goodyear, I am happy to help.
First lets break down the stem. Let ourselves be the farmers of developing countries. What are we saying?
1) We say that American govt offers subsidies for their farmers through buying all the additional crop that is left unsold. So American farmers aren't controlling their output
2) Because there is more production for a particular demand, the prices of wheat are coming down.
3) Conclusion: Without subsidies, American farmers will occur loss for any crop unsold and so they will start producing what is needed, hence increasing the wheat price (for a given demand if the production is less, the prices will rise)

So what can be said in order to shut our mouths criticizing American govt?

A) In the entire topic we are not talking about increasing or decreasing demand. We were concerned that whatever the demand is American farmers are producing more, hence bringing down the price of wheat. So reject this option.
B) Non-government buyers are able to predict the demand for wheat. Again, amount of demand is not the topic under discussion. Reject
C) Soybean? Do you really think showing an example of soybean is going to stop us from making the same statement? How can you compare Soybean and wheat? Their demand, production models may be different. Reject
D) Even if America stops its production, other countries will produce more wheat. Whether it is America or other country, we do not bother. Our concern is wheat is produced more than demand and so prices are lower. In any case, some country or the other is producing more wheat, so how can our attack on American to stop subsidizing (more wheat production) is going to help our case? Contender
E) Follows the same reasoning as C. Reject.

So D) is the answer.

You can also look in to this question as a cause and effect model.
Cause= American subsidies are encouraging more production of wheat
Effect= Prices are lesser
If we can find another cause to the effect we can weaken the argument.
Another cause is not just America, even Canada and Russia produces more wheat. So again D is the answer.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Farmers in developing countries claim that the global price of wheat is low because American farmers produce too much of the grain. They also claim that American farmers produce too much wheat because they have no incentive to manage their crops, since the U.S. government will buy whatever wheat American farmers cannot sell on the open market. We are asked to find a choice that weakens the claims of the farmers in developing countries that removing the American subsidy would cause the price of wheat to rise.

(A) That there are uses for wheat that is not eaten is irrelevant here. This does not address any aspect of the farmers' claims.

(B) The fact that buyers of wheat can predict their needs in advance is irrelevant here, because the text indicates that American farmers do not pay attention to actual demand for wheat.

(C) In this argument, the global market for soybeans is irrelevant to the global market for wheat, which is a different commodity with different demand, supply, and pricing structures.

(D) CORRECT. The farmers assume that the sole cause of the wheat surplus is the United States. This answer choice suggests that other countries would modify their output to counterbalance any reduction on the part of the United States, keeping prices constant instead of allowing them to rise.

(E) The price of another crop is largely irrelevant. Moreover, the fact that the price of sorghum, a non-subsidized crop, is lower tends to support, rather than weaken, the claims of the farmers.
_________________

It appears to be A - though I am not sure.

Here's my reasoning -

The main argument is this -
Farmers don't regulate the amount of wheat they produce - because whatever is left over from the non-sales on the global market is brought over by the US Govt. Hence US Govt is indirectly responsible for low wheat price.

A brings a new element by saying - "wheat not processed for consumption" has industrial application - hence it is possible that the farmers actually produce CONSUMABLE and NON CONSUMABLE wheat - the latter being purchased by the Govt for Industrial applications.

Agree with D.

A - Farmers are producing more wheat now because there is a guarantee that excess wheat will be bought. Industrial applications may already be consuming wheat. And there is no guarantee that all the extra wheat will be used by Industrial application
B - irrelevant
C - not right to compare soyabean price with that of wheat. teh 2 commodities can't be expected to cost the same
E - same as C

This is a vveaken question I need an approach to ensure that the ansvver is righ
2) VVHy is C and E irrelavnt to the ansvver
3) Hovv can D be the ansvver

Please explain the assumption here - need help from an expert here please


Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States government, through farm subsidies, is responsible for the artificially low global price of wheat. Because the U.S. government buys whatever wheat American farmers
are unable to sell on the open market, American farmers have no incentive to modulate the size of their crops according to the needs of the global market.

As a result, American farmers routinely produce more wheat than the
global market can absorb and the global price of wheat is kept low. Without these subsidies, the farmers in developing economies claim, American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on
the open market and the global price of wheat would rise. Which of the following, if true, most weakens the claims of the farmers in developing countries regarding the price of wheat?



• Wheat that is not processed for consumption is often used for certain industrial applications.
• Non-governmental buyers of wheat and wheat products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance.
• The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat.


• Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output.

• The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat.

The farmers in developing countries argue that US subsidies lead to a global surplus of wheat that keeps the price of wheat artificially low. D is a weaken because it presents evidence that the global supply of wheat would not be any lower without these subsidies. According to D, if the US dropped its subsidies and US farmers therefore reduced their production, other countries would simply increase their wheat production. Therefore, the subsidy cannot readily be blamed for the low price of wheat. If we want to dig deeper, we might also conclude that there must be demand for this wheat if other countries are ready to step up their supply. However, this doesn't need to be true--we simply need to know that the US subsidies are not creating a situation that would otherwise not exist.

C and E don't matter because they only talk about the absolute prices of soybeans and sorghum, without any comparison to what they would be if subsidies were removed or added. Imagine that I said this: "When I went car shopping, I was wearing a designer suit. I think the car dealer overcharged me because I appeared wealthy." Now imagine that my brother responded like this: "But the other day when I bought an iPod, I was wearing a similar suit, and I paid much less for my iPod than you did for your car." His response is silly, right? He paid less for the iPod because iPods are less valuable than cars (at least, in most cases). Just knowing that one value is more or less than the other tells us nothing about the effect of our appearance. Did I pay too much? Did my brother? We'll only know if we look at what someone less nicely dressed paid for the same item. Similarly, in the case of the crops in our original argument, just knowing that one value is more or less than the other tells us nothing about the effect of subsidies. Maybe the price of sorghum is low because it is cheap to produce, or because it is not in high demand.

By the way, I notice that you are using two v's in place of the letter w. Those are not the same thing! It's weaken, not vveaken . . .

I hope this helps! Let me know if I can elaborate on any of the above.
_________________

Dmitry

Brilliant explanation .. Thanks.. Appreciate it..

Sorry but I just lost the w from my keyboard ... so I use a vv .. though it still vvorked i mean worked

Thanks a ton

Aha--mystery solved! I thought you just came from a land with no w's. I'm glad my explanation was helpful.
_________________

First of all a very good question.

Assumption for this question is
"Low production/Sufficient Production of wheat by American farmers -> High global price of wheat".

We need to attack this assumption .
We need an argument that states even though American farmers produced low wheat , there was a low global price.

Choice D does that by stating Eventhough American farmers reduce their output, countries such as canada and Russia
are likely to produce more wheat.

As far as Choice C is concerned , it is no way affecting our assumption.

Please give kudos if this helps

I think D strengthens the argument, if USA and it's subsidies are responsible for high output and if USA stops giving subsidy to its farmer, then consequently output will reduce and then to fill the void Russia and Canada will produce more wheat.. don't you think its indirectly accepting that USA was responsible for low wheat prices and through its subsidies it was producing high output... I think it strengthens the claims of farmer... let any country jump into later to fill the void ... but farmers claim looks plausible ... statement validate their claim .. indirectly.

How come "D" is an answer?
D says: Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output.

We do not know how much the current production stats of Canada and Russia. It might be possible, United States is currently producing 80 pc of global market and combined Canada and Russia is 2 pc. Even if Canada and Russia would doubled the wheat production (4 pc) wouldn't suffice the criteria and need.

Currently supply > demand --> So price is less.
Conclusion: Reduce supply to balance the demand --> Price will increase

A. Wheat that is not processed for consumption is often used for certain industrial applications. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

B. Non-governmental buyers of wheat and wheat products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance. - Incorrect - Does not weaken the conclusion

C. The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat. - Incorrect

D. Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output. - Correct - This statement weakens the conclusion by stating that the overall supply will not be reduced. So supply > demand and the price will not increase

E. The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

Answer: D

Argument implies that more quantity of wheat is the reason for low price.

We have to find a claim that shows that even if government does not control the amount of wheat, price will not reduce.

Price will not reduce if the quantity of wheat remains the same. Option D is stating the same that if USA reduces the quantity, other countries will increase it, and hence, the quantity will remain the same, not increasing the price.
_________________

Conclusion is ''Wheat price would rise in global market if U S govt stop subsidies''.

Weaken :- "Wheat price would not rise in global market if US govt stop subsidies".

Why?

As per option D, if U S reduces production of wheat then other countries(such as Canada and Russia) are likely to produce more. So the less production in U S will be compensated by more production in other countries, so there would be no effect on price of wheat. It clearly weakens the argument.
Hence option D is correct.

Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States government, through farm subsidies, is responsible for the artificially low global price of wheat. Because the U.S. government buys whatever wheat American farmers are unable to sell on the open market, American farmers have no incentive to modulate the size of their crops according to the needs of the global market. As a result, American farmers routinely produce more wheat than the global market can absorb and the global price of wheat is kept low. Without these subsidies, the farmers in developing economies claim, American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.
Type - weaken
Boil it down - Without government subsidies, the American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.
Pre-thinking - Without the subsidy , the supply of wheat produced by American farmers will decrease and the price will rise if the demand is constant. But what if other producers of wheat increase their production ?


A.Wheat that is not processed for consumption can be used for certain industrial applications. - Irrelevant
B.Non-governmental buyers of wheat and wheat products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance. - Out of scope
C.The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat. - mild strengthener ; also the other factors of soybean might differ significantly from wheat
D.Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output. - Correct
E.The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat. - this weakens to a certain extent but we don't know whether the other factors for sorghum market is comparable to wheat market

Answer D
_________________

Farmers in developing countries claim that the United States government, through farm subsidies, is responsible for the artificially low global price of wheat. Because the U.S. government buys whatever wheat American farmers are unable to sell on the open market, American farmers have no incentive to modulate the size of their crops according to the needs of the global market. As a result, American farmers routinely produce more wheat than the global market can absorb and the global price of wheat is kept low. Without these subsidies, the farmers in developing economies claim, American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the claims of the farmers in developing countries regarding the price of wheat?

(A) Wheat that is not processed for consumption can be used for certain industrial applications. the use doesn't matter,all we care about is the price in the overall open market

(B) Non-governmental buyers of wheat and wheat products are able to predict how much wheat they will need several years in advance. prediction isn't the problem here,the actual price is.

(C) The United States government offers similar subsidies to soybean farmers, though the global price of soybeans is significantly higher than that of wheat. there could be other factors affecting the soybean market,we are more concerned about the wheat market.Irrelevant

(D) Other countries, such as Canada and Russia, are likely to produce more wheat if the United States were to reduce its output. hits the nail on its head.The passage suggests that if American farmers reduce their produce,the prices will fall.But then,Canada and Russia will produce more,negating the effect.

(E) The price of sorghum, a crop for which the United States government offers no subsidies, is lower than that of wheat.sorghum is irrelevant

Dear Bunuel,

I am having some difficulty getting past my thought process for this question. I marked Option B as my answer.

Conclusion: No subsidies --> American farmers would produce only the amount of wheat that they could sell on the open market and the global price of wheat would rise.
To Prove: No subsidies ---> farmers will not produce = demand and the global wheat price will not rise ( stay same or decrease)

A - out of scope

B - demand is predictable so the consumers will buy and hoard wheat at lower prices, decreasing demand and therefore decreasing price. CORRECT

C - can have numerous reasons why soyabean price is higher

D - total supply > demand ? we don't know that. All we know is that they will produce more than they do now.

E - out of scope

Please explain...
Thank you..

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.
_________________