Cocoa grown organically on trees within the shade of the rain forest

Question

Cocoa grown organically on trees within the shade of the rain forest canopy commands a premium price. However, acquiring and maintaining the certification that allows the crop to be sold as organically grown is very time-consuming and laborious. Meanwhile, the price premium for the grower is about 30 percent, whereas cocoa trees grown in full sun using standard techniques can have twice the yield of organic, shade-grown trees. Financially, therefore, standard techniques are the better choice for the farmer.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Cocoa can be grown only in a climate that has the temperature and moisture characteristics of a tropical rain forest.

(B) Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.

(C) Although organically grown cocoa has long commanded a price premium over cocoa grown using standard techniques, its price has fluctuated considerably during that period.

(D) Cocoa is not the only cash crop that can be raised on plots that leave the rain forest canopy overhead essentially intact.

(E) Governments and international conservation organizations are working to streamline organic certification so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work.

ID: 500274

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

You say that governments and organizations "are reducing overhead work for the farmers (which seems to be the only hindrance to grow premium cocoa)." However, that is not what choice (E) says. Here's choice (E): Let's break this down and stick to the language that the choice itself is using: "Governments and international conversation orgs are working to streamline organic certification..." This implies that the work to streamline is in progress. The streamlining is not complete, and we don't yet know the results. "...so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work ." The intention of streamlining certification is to relieve farmers of unnecessary work, but don't know how "unnecessary work" fits into the total amount of work required to acquire and maintain certification. 1% of that total work might be unnecessary. 90% of that total work might be unnecessary. We also don't know whether "unnecessary work" is more expensive than "necessary work." Choice (E) is not correct because it doesn't weaken the argument as seriously as choice (B) does. (E) identifies a potential way that some portion of certification costs might be reduced. If the work to streamline certification is successful, and if the "unnecessary work" actually represents a significant share of total work, then we'd have more reason to doubt that standard techniques are the better choice. But if the work to streamline certification is unsuccessful, or if the "unnecessary work" represents an insignificant share of total work, then we wouldn't have much reason at all to doubt that standard techniques are the better choice. (E) doesn't give us enough information to know which of these scenarios is true, so it doesn't seriously weaken the argument. Choice (B), on the other hand, tells us: If true, this means that standard techniques are costly in a way that shade-grown techniques are not. This is a very concrete statement, with no ambiguity. Standard techniques require costly applications. Shade-grown trees don't require those costly applications. This weakens the the argument much more seriously than (E), and that's why it's the best choice. I hope this helps! Please be grateful that I didn't include any jokes about cool beans or throwing shade.

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The answer is B.

We'll use the  Alternative  approach, as we aren't entirely sure what we are looking for, and it is thus best to use the answers:

(A) Cocoa can be grown only in a climate that has the temperature and moisture characteristics of a tropical rain forest. -  this applies to both growing methods, doesn't help us

(B) Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.  Yes - this is a reason that the standard technique is LESS financially efficient than the organic method

(C) Although organically grown cocoa has long commanded a price premium over cocoa grown using standard techniques, its price has fluctuated considerably during that period.  We don't care about the past, but about the price now

(D) Cocoa is not the only cash crop that can be raised on plots that leave the rain forest canopy overhead essentially intact.  So what? we are comparing two methods of cocoa growing, not other crops

(E) Governments and international conservation organizations are working to streamline organic certification so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work.  irrelevant

JasonClark · Answer

Isn't E a good contender? As the govt.s and organizations are reducing overhead work for the farmers(which seems to be the only hindrance to grow premium cocoa). Though this doesn't undermine the fact that standard techniques are better choice for the farmers but it does strengthen the alternate solution of growing cocoa.
 GMATNinja  Could you please give your views on this?

ali267 · Answer

I was thrown off by the part of the question that states "the price premium for the grower is about 30 percent".

I thought this is meant to include all costs to the grower.

So, when I read B, my thinking was that even if "Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.", I thought this didn't matter because growing on shade-grown trees is still 30 percent more expensive even after accounting for the costly applications of fertilizers and pesticides.

Where is my error? Am I misunderstanding what "price premium" means?

GMATNinja · Answer

It seems like you’ve misunderstood what the author of the passage means by “price premium.” When the passage says that “the price premium for the grower is about 30 percent,” it means that growers are able to charge a 30% higher price for cocoa grown organically. So, if 1 ounce of cocoa is normally $1, then 1 ounce of organic cocoa is $1.30.

I hope that helps!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - per the  red   - i inferred

Revenues from standard Cocoa > Revnues from organic Cocoa

My question is on the  blue  specifically.

Can one infer any of these two ?

(i)  Overall Costs from standard Cocoa IS EQUAL TO OR LOWER THAN than overall costs from organic Cocoa 
(ii)  Costs (related to Certification only) from standard Cocao Cocoa IS EQUAL TO OR LOWER THAN than Costs (related to Certification only) from organic Cocoa

Inferring (i) is dangerous but is inferring (ii) dangerous ?

Thank you !

avigutman · Answer

We can't make either of those inferences,  jabhatta2 . 
We don't know anything about costs. All we know is that it's "very time-consuming and laborious."

woohoo921 · Answer

Hi experts,

I have a few questions:
1.) I want to confirm that with weakener type questions we are looking for anything that weakens the argument, even if it is not bullet proof. I am aware that Choice B weakens the argument. However, we do not know for 100% whether if the much higher yields from the standard trees could offset the higher costs. But, because Choice B is the only weakener/the higher yields are not mentioned in the other answers, Choice B makes the most sense.
2.) For Choice C, doesn't this weaken the argument a bit? Although not as strong of a weakener as Choice B, if there is great inconsistency in organic cocoa prices, who is to say what the future beholds? What if a farmer only plans to operate for a few years and during that brief time period, organic cocoa prices are significantly lower? Are we just operating under the assumption that past performance for a long period of time is reliable?

Thank you

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Yes, of course.

This is something that follows from the basic meaning of the word "weaken". (If an answer choice contravened the logic of the passage in a 'bulletproof' way—i.e., contradicted something in the passage in a rigorous, formally logical way—then that statement wouldn't just "weaken" the argument; it would DESTROY / DEFEAT / REBUT the argument!

That's correct. Now, go have a look through some other weakening questions (only official problems from GMAC!); you should find that those problems work the same way.

This isn't problematic, because the four WRONG answers will be, well, WRONG. Each of them will either /1/ be irrelevant to the argument, or else /2/ actually go the opposite of the way you want (= will strengthen the argument if it's a Weaken problem, or vice versa).
Therefore, the correct answer will be the ONLY answer choice that works in the correct direction with respect to the argument.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

I can answer this one without even looking at choice C: No.

Weaken problems will have exactly one answer choice that weakens the argument (to some degree; the degree isn't important, because this choice will be the only weakener), and four choices that DON'T weaken the argument (= are irrelevant or actually strengthen the argument).

Similarly, strengthen problems will have exactly one answer choice that strengthens the argument (to some degree; the degree isn't important, because this choice will be the only strengthener), and four choices that DON'T weaken the argument (= are irrelevant or actually weaken the argument).

You will NEVER see two answer choices in a battle of "goes the right way more strongly" vs. "also goes the right way, but only weakly".
This observation also circles back to your first question, because it's the reason why words like "costly" don't have to be rendered into quantitative form.

If there were problems with two choices that go the right way, forcing you to decide which one goes the right way MORE, then absolutely all such words would have to be quantified in order to enable such comparisons. But GMAC doesn't write problems like that, so the quantification isn't necessary.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

As explained in detail above, this will never happen. If you think there are 2 answers that both go in the right direction, something has gone wrong on at least one of the two.

(There may be third-party problems that work this way. If so, they're just bad problems.)

Some  random movement up and down, but never down by enough to reverse the price premium (this is explicitly stated in choice C).

Remember, the 30% figure in the original passage is irrelevant. What matters is that organic trees command a greater price, by SOME margin, than do non-organic trees. Under choice C, this is still true, so choice C changes nothing.

If your reasoning arrives at a "what if...", "might", "could", etc... STOP. You're now at "maybe or maybe not", with neither option indicated as more likely—which clearly can't be the basis for saying that anything strengthens or weakens an argument (or for making any other directional judgment call).

If "X likely...", "X probably...", "most X...", or any other such wording that makes one of the two opposites substantially MORE likely than the other one, then you can keep going with your reasoning.

sharmashagun770 · Answer

This is helpful. But I am unable to understand why A is wrong. If Cocoa can not be grown in full sun, then, the standard technique can not be applied at all but the former can still be applied. Hence, financially, the former will earn an income whole the other can not generate the income at all and if applied, will only be a cost.

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's (A) again:

A "climate" is the prevailing condition in a general area.  Within  that climate you could have shady and sunny locations.

So, (A) isn't giving us a way to differentiate between growing in the shade vs. growing in the sun -- instead, it's telling us that BOTH of those growing techniques would need to occur in a certain kind of climate. This doesn't weaken the argument, because it doesn't give us anything to support one growing method over the other.

Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

nikiki · Answer

Even i got to options B and E after POE.

1) acquiring and maintaining the certification is very time-consuming and laborious - we havent been told about its cost, it just says its tedious 
2)The conclusion is " Financially, therefore, standard techniques are the better choice for the farmer." - focusing on the financial aspect

Whether option E is true or not, it does not provide enough information to determine if it will be a financially better choice -   which we ultimately want to weaken. 
 Option B on the other hand states the financial cost clearly.

Is my reasoning correct  GMATNinja

GMATNinja · Answer

You got it. The conclusion is that the the farmer benefits financially by sticking with standard techniques. We already know that standard techniques allow farmers to double their yield, while the organic crop only gives them a 30% premium. A more streamlined process to get that organic label might not impact profits at all -- it might just be a little less annoying to do it!

But having to spend more on fertilizer and pesticides? That's obviously going to impact the farmers' finances.

Nice work!

Cocoa grown organically on trees within the shade of the rain forest

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Cocoa grown organically on trees within the shade of the rain forest

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards