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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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."

Why is E not a correct answer? What's the point of inserting this info "acquiring and maintaining the certification that allows the crop to be sold as organically grown is very time-consuming and laborious"?

I would go with B.

D and E are out of scope.
C strengthens the argument.
A might seem right because it mentions rain forest, but this choice only talks about the climate characteristics. It might be possible to provide the same characteristics in standard open sun method too.
B shows that standard method has extra costs.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Premise:
cocoa is highly priced. two technique to grow. shade-grown and standard. Conclusion says that standard one is the best choice. reason being that this way one can have twice the growth then usual. Make sense. But we need to weaken it. some thoughts are.
1. may be certification issue for this technique.
2. Its all the game of price.
3. Something is wrong with standard technique but not with shade one.

(A) Cocoa can be grown only in a climate that has the temperature and moisture characteristics of a tropical rain forest. ---- not weakner point.

(B) Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees. --- on the line of pre-thinking, 2nd one infact.

(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. --- not exactly a weakner. I think 'its' is used for shade-grown . even after price fluctuation shade one has premium price over the other one then it is really good. how ever its of past, as of now standard one is on the run.

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

(E) Governments and international conservation organizations are working to streamline organic certification so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work. --- even if this happened it will affect both. not a good choice.

Simply answer is B as this is the only option which is saying against the standard techniques.

Here the conclusion is that it is financially a better choice to use the standard techniques.

One way to weaken the argument is to show that standard techniques are not financially better than shade-grown.

Only answer choice B fits this pre thinking.

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?

According to me, The reason why option "E" is not the right ans is that we are looking for option which would most seriously weaken the argument.

B is better than E. E is saying that govt is working towards making certification part work but is it sure that it will work? Nobody knows.

But in option B, we clearly have a weakener that standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.hence, it is a prob.

P; CP; P/P; C; Conclusion: Financially standard techniques are the better choice for the farmer. There seems to be some disconnect here. We say that price premium for this shade cocoa is 30%, but cocoa tees with standard stuff has twice the yield? But what about the price of the standard stuff? Is it more profitable? “Financially” is a critical word here. It’s a broad term, so would it could be associated with anything (i.e., revenues or costs).

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.
Story trap. Does it really matter where cocoa can be grown? We want to know the financial benefits/costs of the standard stuff. Someone may be tempted by this answer because the rain forest may perhaps be associated with more sun, I guess. But this doesn’t give any clarity or poke any holes in the argument with standard costs. A is out.

B. Cocoa trees grown using standard techniques require costly applications of fertilizer and pesticides, unlike shade-grown trees.
Hm okay, so the relative costs are higher. This could throw some shade on the argument then. If it’s costly materials needed to grow the standard stuff, this cost could potentially outweigh the yield that is apparently twice that of the premium stuff, undermining the argument. Doesn’t shatter the argument, it just throws a left jab at the argument. You don’t need that right hook for a weakener to be right.

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.
Okay so this premium stuff isn’t that great (because the price fluctuates. This seems like a strengthener, if anything. The good thing about this organic stuff is that it has price premium. But regardless, we get no clarity for the financials of the standard stuff. C is out.

D. Cocoa is not the only cash crop that can be raised on plots that leave the rain forest canopy overhead essentially intact.
This doesn’t make any distinction between standard and organic stuff. D is out.

E. Governments and international conservation organizations are working to streamline organic certification so as to relieve farmers of unnecessary work.
And what if the standard stuff is super cheap to make and it still makes more sense to do the standard stuff. We have no idea about the other side. E is out. If anything, B is significantly better. This choice is ambiguous. Is the unnecessary work costly? How much of it is there throughout the process? What does streamline really mean?

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?

Conclusion: Financially, standard techniques are the better choice for the farmer.

A. This appears to contradict the premises
B. If this were true, it suggests that the profit will be decreased due to increased costs. Hold on to this one.
C. This one almost strengthens the conclusion since it casts doubt on the support for shade-grown trees
D. Not relevant since we're only discussing cocoa
E. This one is a bit of a trap, but the fact is that, here, the government is working towards achieving the certification. It may not succeed, therefore it doesn't necessarily weaken.

Therefore, the answer is B.

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 !

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