Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods

Question

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=48949 
(B) The country won't be able to meet the increased demand for goods if its factories are already operating at a peak. Hence no increase in revenue from exports.

blueseas · Accepted Answer

THAT IS NOT A WEAKENER .

see one example:
 
by drinking milk one can become healthy.

what is conclusion  : drink milk will result you in good health.
does this says that drinking milk is the  only  way to make good health?..answer is NO.

now if you say by eating fruits one can become healthy.==>does this  weaken  above statement.? NO

only way to weaken is by showing that by drinking milk we are not GOING to achieve good heslth.

now see orginal problem.:
politician say =>decrease pundra==>increase bargain==>increase export

so you cant weaken by saying that
 increase production of industries ==>increase bargain==>increase export

compare with above given example.

hope it helps

KyleWiddison · Answer

The argument states that during periods of weak currency (lower value vs other countries), Darfir experience a sharp INCREASE in exports. Politicians are suggesting that the country intentionally weaken the currency so Darfir can experience a similar INCREASE in exports.

The correct answer to this 'weaken' question needs to ATTACK a necessary assumption to the politicians plan.

A-If anything, this answer strengthens the position of the politicians
B-This answer choice (correct) states that manufacturing is already at peak levels. That means that even if the currency become devalued and demand for products increases, Darfir would not be able to increase manufacturing to meet that demand. The conclusion of the politicians is completely weakened (if not destroyed).  
C-Out of scope answer
D-Out of scope (or perhaps even a little strengthening)
E-Out of scope

KW

IanStewart · Answer

This is quite a typical format for a GMAT CR question: we learn that something worked in the past (in this question, weakening the currency), and the argument suggests it will work again. That might be a good argument  if the situation now is identical to the situation in the past . But, if anything important has changed, what worked before might not work now. If you know that you're looking for an answer choice which describes something that has fundamentally changed since the last time the currency was weakened, then answer B here should 'jump off the page' as the correct answer: now, unlike before, there is no room to increase exports.

KarishmaB · Answer

It is a 'weaken the plan' question. Plan: When currency weakens, exports increase. (Foreigners can buy more using same amount of their currencies so they buy more.) Therefore, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports , the government should allow the pundra to become weak again. Aim: to cause another similarly sized increase in exports Focus on the highlighted words. The aim is to cause a similarly sized increase in exports. That is what the plan is trying to achieve. On weaken questions, we focus on the conclusion. What the plan is trying to achieve is parallel to conclusion. So we focus on trying to weaken what the plan is trying to achieve. We need to find something that tells us why we will not get a similarly sized increase in exports even if we weaken pundra. Options a, c, d and e do not talk about the reasons we will not see similarly sized increase in exports. Option B tells us that darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels. If this is true, exports cannot increase much because darfir cannot manufacture more than it is manufacturing now. If there are no extra products manufactured, there cannot be extra exports. In previous instances, darfir was manufacturing below capacity so they could manufacture extra products. Hence the plan worked in those instances but this time it may not. Therefore, option (B) is correct. A. Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.   This doesn’t weaken the plan. If anything, it lends a bit more credence that these experts perhaps know what they are talking about!   B. After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.   If Darfir’s manufacturing sector is operating at peak, it is very unlikely that it can support much increase in exports. So even if the currency weakens, the exports may not increase much. In previous two instances, Darfir was manufacturing below capacity so they could manufacture extra products. Hence the plan worked in those instances but this time it may not. It weakens our plan. Correct.    C. The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.   The aim is not a healthier economy but instead increased exports. So, this is irrelevant.    D. Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.   The point is - will allowing pundra to become weak lead to increase in exports?   E. A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.   What else can lead to increase in exports is irrelevant. Answer (B) Weaken questions are discussed here: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k

bkk145 · Answer

I got B, and after reading some posts, I notice that it talks about revenue. However, I still think it is the best choice. Since there is no more manufacturing capacity, weakening the currency won't help; thus, government can doubt the plan.

Argument here is that weakening currency ->increased export, and we have to prove that this plan will NOT work.

A. This strengthens the argument, if at all. 
C. Strong currency OR significant rise in export -> healthy economy. This argument do not relate anything to the main argument. I feel that this is irrelevant as it doesn't prove that the plan won't work. 
D. Irrelevant. Not talking about strength of currency here.
E. This is also irrelevant. We are not talking about efficiency of plants. This only gives an alternative to weaken currency method and it does not prove that the politicians won't achieve their aim.

augana · Answer

The right answer is B.

If your country is already operating at near peak production capacity, whats the point of trying to raise exports if you cant produce anymore?

shekharkataria · Answer

If you are doubtful between B and E. Here is the way out. B and E both weakens the argument. But if see closely , even if E works, we still cannot counter argument. We need to choose an option which harms the plan in some way.

veenu08 · Answer

Can someone please explain me how E is incorrect?

Isnt it of the form cause and effect.

As per the argument -- weakening of pundra causes Darfir's manufactured exports to rise. In E option its giving another cause for the same effect. So cant it weaken the argument?

Regards,
Veenu

suntwin · Answer

The answer is B guys.

E would have been a valid option if it was a weaken question.
The question is talking about undermining the politician recommendation.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

kinjiGC · Answer

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic’s currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world’s most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir’s manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir’s exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians’ recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?"

A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness -  How does it affect the argument? - Out of scope.

B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels. -  Correct
If the manufacturing sector is at the peak levels and if the currency is allowed to drop compared to the other currencies, the manufacturing sector will not be able to support the extra demand which is generated and the plan will fail.

C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country’s currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
 We are not talking about making the economy healthier.

D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
 - Supports the argument.

E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies. -  Alternate reasoning to make the Dafir's Product popular but we need to find an option that makes the plan fail.

minhaz3333 · Answer

From egmat -
Let’s suppose the argument says that

Eating sugar leads to obesity.

Can we weaken this statement by saying that

Eating oil leads to obesity.
The answer is No.

Why? Because the author is not saying that only eating sugar leads to obesity. The author is only saying that eating sugar is one of the ways to get obese. Even from common understanding, we all know that both of these things i.e. eating sugar and eating oil lead to obesity. The fact that eating oil makes you obese has no impact on the likelihood of the fact that eating sugar leads to obesity. In other words, saying that there are multiple ways to achieve the same objective does not weaken the conclusion which only states one of the ways to reach the objective.

Now the modified Version -
Eating sugar made Jon obese.

Can we weaken my statement by saying that -

Eating oil made Jon obese.

The answer here is Yes. In this argument, we are essentially talking about a specific case i.e. what made Jon obese. Here, it is given knowledge that Jon is obese, what the argument or the conclusion provides is a reason that made Jon obese.

A great explanation by using the same question as an example -
I found it really helpful.
https://e-gmat.com/blog/gmat-verbal/cri ... e-weakener

Poorvasha · Answer

Hi  VeritasPrepKarishma ,

I understand that the plan as stated in the argument was to weaken the pundra in order to increase exports. B says that even though you weaken the currency, you may still not achieve an increase in exports. However, how do we identify this is exactly what is to be weakened ? How I saw it initially was that the argument is stating that an increase in exports will be achieved by weakening the pundra. So, we find some other alternate thing that could increase the exports (other than the currency weakening), we can probably weaken our conclusion. E provides an alternate reason ?

Can you shed some light on this and explain how do you exactly understand here that is what is to be weakened ?

adkikani · Answer

Poorvasha

Focus on the goal of the plan,which is  we need to cause similar sized exports in future as in past .

I think subtle difference you missed is that goal of the plan is about future, as indicated by SHOULD. 
Whenever a cause and effect relationship takes place in past, alternate cause is correct weakener. 
We know here that there was an unique cause that led to effect.

But when a causal effect is shown in present tense / future, will alternate cause be the correct weakener. Think about it.

No, since we do not know if the said cause was the  only  one that lead to the effect, Right?

You might help below explanation helpful too:

X will lead to Y (X: Weak pundra, Y: similarly sized increase in exports) So, this argument is talking about a future case that X will lead to Y. Remember, in this argument, Y has not occurred in the past and the argument is not trying to explain the reasons for
its occurrence. The argument is making a futuristic statement that X will lead to Y.
The option statement for this argument says that:
A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's product a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies
The statement presents an alternate route, Z, to reach the same end Y ( Z: A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants, Y: similar sized increase in exports). Here again, just
the presence of one more way to reach the end does not weaken the argument that X will lead to Y.
The argument does not say that only X will lead to Y. If there are other ways to reach Y, it does not
impact the argument.

Hope this helps!

SairamRamo · Answer

Politician's recommendation:  government should allow the pundra to become weak again
 The intention of the recommendation:  To increase the exports

Let's analyze each option

(A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
 This in no way provides us with evidence that Politicians plan will not achieve its aim

(B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
 Even if the demand is increased by weakening the currency, the supply is restricted as already the factories are at its full capacity

(C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
 We are not concerned about the economy's health, we are only concerned about exports increase

(D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir's on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
 Even if they have a stable currency, we are not sure whether it's relatively less in value wrt pundra or not

(E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.
 We are concerned about the outcome when currency is weakened, not about other stimuli which might/might not affect the exports

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Let me explain why option E is wrong. Well, I have already explained that in an article I co-authored when I worked at e-GMAT. Here's the link to the article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/alternate-ca ... 55034.html

GraceSCKao · Answer

Dear experts IanStewart KarishmaB avigutman AndrewN zhanbo MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja RonTargetTestPrep I hope to discuss the option (B) further since I cannot embrace it for two reasons: B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir's manufacturing sector is now near peak levels First, (B) says that the country's manufacturing sector is now near "peak" levels. "Peak" does not mean "full capacity," so we cannot really assume that the country's production cannot increase further as greatly as it did in the past two times. For example, maybe in the past two times the manufacturing capacity went up from 30% to 50% as a result of the currency depreciation. Now it is standing at 70%, the highest level ever, but it can still climb to 90%. Secondly, even if we interpret the "peak" level as "full-capacity level," we still need to take into account that "manufacturing" is not completely equal to "exports." Domestically produced products can be bought locally or overseas. If this DR country's products are a bargain overseas, cannot we infer that foreign consumers might be willing to pay more and therefore these DR manufacturers will choose to sell their products to foreign consumers rather than local citizens? In this case, DR country's exports could still go up greatly although it has already been manufacturing at full-capacity. I might think too much here and use the real-world knowledge, but sometimes I feel that real-world knowledge is helpful in the CR section. (Plus, I am from Taiwan, where manufactures do prefer to sell products to overseas clients instead of local consumers..., so I am sure this thing could happen though it is not pleasant for local consumers.) I don't prefer other options and just hope to discuss (B) further. I can select (B) for it is still better than other four options. But I do not like it alone much. Thanks in advance for your sharing and ideas!

KarishmaB · Answer

As long as it is the best option of the five, you don't need to worry anymore. An option needn't be perfectly airtight. It should just have the most merit.

As for the points you raised, 'peak capacity' means 'maximum capacity.' The factory is working at peak capacity means it is producing as much as it can possibly produce with the current infra. 
Also, the argument is saying that Darfir was able to export a lot because its currency weakened and hence its products became cheaper on the foreign markets. It is unlikely then that they will be able to export at higher rates so a preference for exports may not be there (of course it all depends on the cost in the domestic market etc). But we are getting into a lot of if-then situations here which are pointless. As long as the option has merit, it is acceptable. It needn't account for all future possibilities.

ashutosh_73 · Answer

Hi,  KarishmaB   IanStewart   ChiranjeevSingh   AjiteshArun

Options (A), (D), and (E) were pretty easy to eliminate. I knew that (C) is a ''so what?'' answer, but i couldn't figure out how (B) will weaken the argument.
Experts have explained (B), and i now understand why (B) is the best of the lot.

I tend to get questions wrong, wherein correct answer can be interpretated in several ways, but it weakens the argument in one way OR wherein correct answer is pretty hidden to understand.

In this particular question, i interpreted (B) as below:
Okay, so even if export is at its peak, export can be 10% of the total. But if currency values drops, country will be able to push the export further?
So this option may not weaken the argument.

I may have eliminated (B) because i didn't understand it or got confused by it, but how do i become better with such questions?
How do i choose better in those last 30-45 seconds, wherein i am confused with one option(B) and bit skeptical about the other(C)?

Or should i just study such questions and move on?

Manbhav7 · Answer

The question asks : if Politicians' recommendation is followed, will this result in increase in exports? - Need to weaken the plan 
Option B is correct because if the capacity is near peak levels - EVEN IF YOU FOLLOW POLITICIANS' PLAN, IT WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL. 
Option E: This option weakens politicians' assumption, but we need to see if we follow the recommendation, will the plan to increase exports be successful.

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods

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