Economist: Paying extra for fair-trade coffeecoffee labeled with the

GMATNinja Can you provide your insights over the argument. I want to understand if average prices rise and thereby result in greater supply than demand, then cost would reduce. In that case, the prices of FT coffee will reduce as well right?

From the argument, we know that poor farmers receive a "higher price" for fair trade coffee than they do for non-fair-trade coffee.

However, we don't know how much higher the price is. So, even if the price is reduced when supply outstrips demand, it is quite possible that poor farmers are still paid more for fair trade coffee than they would be for non-fair-trade coffee in a "normal" market. We simply do not have enough information to answer that question.

If the oversupply issue DOES hurt fair trade farmers as well as non-fair-trade farmers, that would certainly strengthen the argument that fair trade coffee "may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps." Sadly, though, none of the answer choices give us insight to help us evaluate this issue.

(B), on the other hand, certainly helps us to evaluate the argument from a different angle. The author argues specifically that fair trade coffee "lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers." Does this mean that fair trade coffee hurts MORE farmers than it helps? Only if there are MORE non-fair-trade coffee farmers than there are fair trade coffee farmers.

I hope that helps!

I couldn't get the point. Even if we know the proportion, the result will be the same.
Let's say 40% Non fair coffee trade and 60% fair coffee trade. What if we change their place? I don't see any convincing logic here in question...

The author concludes that paying extra for fair trade coffee "may hurt more farmers[...] than it helps." So, trading those numbers would make a huge difference to the author's argument!

If MOST farmers (more that 50%) produce non-fair-trade coffee, then the author's argument looks good. Fair trade practices would hurt the majority of coffee farmers, and help a smaller number of fair-trade farmers.

If the opposite is true and MOST farmers produce fair trade coffee, then the author's argument falls apart. Fair trade practices would help the majority of farmers, and hurt a smaller proportion of non-fair-trade farmers.

It would be helpful to know the answer to (B) to evaluate the author's argument, so (B) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja - This is one issue i have with CR questions . These CR questions dont give complete information ... This is when I start frankly losing confidence in my ability to solve the question because the argument is not clear.


which coffee is being discussed for the above statement...Fair trade coffee ONLY | Non Fair trade coffee ONLY | BOTH.

When you are not sure -- does it make sense to even attempt the question ? I pause and think and after some thinking -- its still not clear. At this point on the exam - does it make sense to just guess ?


Does this lower price for fair-trade coffee ? are we supposed to be solving this question NOT CARING about this nuance ?

When you're reading a CR passage, remember that you're rarely going to be presented with a perfect argument. If an argument was absolutely perfect, then how could you strengthen it? Or weaken it? Or find an assumption that the author didn't mention, but that is crucial for that argument?

Instead of trying to transform the argument into something perfectly airtight, just consider why the author put each piece into the passage. From the author's perspective, how does each piece fit into the whole?

Consider that first quote: "it encourages more coffee to be produced than consumers want to buy."

Here, "it" refers to the practice of paying more for fair-trade coffee. So, what kind of coffee is encouraged by high fair-trade prices? From the author's perspective, it's pretty clear that high fair-trade prices encourage the production of fair-trade coffee. This sentence, coupled with the next one, is what the author offers as support for his/her conclusion.

Perhaps you could argue that there's a small gap in the argument, because the author doesn't explicitly state that he/she's talking about fair-trade coffee in that sentence. That's fine -- we didn't expect a perfect argument! Make a note of the gap -- maybe it will become relevant when it comes to assessing your answer choices.

And here's your second quote again:

As you've mentioned, the author talks about the price/profits related to non-fair-trade coffee, but leaves out the bit concerning fair trade coffee. Another gap, and again, that's fine! From the author's point of view, this sentence serves as evidence for conclusion that fair-trade "may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps." The quoted sentence supports this conclusion by focusing on how non-fair-trade coffee farmers are suffering. We have no idea how fair-trade farmers are doing -- which, again, might become super relevant when you get to the answer choices.

You definitely should care about the nuance of the language in CR passages. When you notice that certain details create a gap in the argument, that doesn't mean that you should give up on the question -- instead just think about the structure of the argument as a whole, note any quirks of the language, and use that analysis to your advantage when you get to the answer choices.

I hope that helps!

^^^^^

But my fundamental question GMATNinja is --

When there is oversuppply of fair trade coffee > demand of fair trade coffee, why will that lead to lowering prices of non-fair trade coffee ?

The sentence structure is set up in my view to suggest somehow

oversuppply of fair trade coffee > demand of fair trade coffee--- IS CAUSING --> lower prices of non-fair trade coffee

Why ? how ?

Again, the author hasn't provided us with a "perfect" argument that connects all of these dots. All you have to know is that the author argues that, because there is an oversupply of fair-trade coffee, the price of non-fair-trade coffee goes down.

Could we fill in those gaps ourselves? Sure! Imagine a world in which the demand for coffee in general is pretty constant. Out of this same constant demand, a growing portion of people choose to buy expensive fair-trade coffee. Farmers start producing more of this expensive fair-trade coffee, so the overall supply of coffee has increased. Now there's too much coffee. People want the expensive fair-trade stuff, which leaves a bunch of non-fair trade coffee going stale on the shelf. So, stores lower the price of non-fair-trade coffee.

Now, the author never explains the above, and it's really not your job to fill in those gaps yourself. Instead, take note of the gaps and use that analysis as you answer the question.

Alternatively, if you really don't understand the substance of a particular critical reasoning passage, just move on! Spend that time answering a different question on your verbal section.

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB Could you please help me with this Q. Below is my analysis
Passage analysis

Background Information:
FT Coffee is a type of coffee-It is intended to help poor: HOW? They receive a higher price for the coffee they grow (Who pays the higher price? Customer or Govt: Not mentioned but it should be government)

Conclusion:
The practice of paying extra for FT coffee MAY hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps
NOTICE SHIFT: Sentence 1 talks about FT farmers (farmers who supply to FT logo). However sentence 2 talks about OVERALL FARMERS (FT AND NON-FT)

Premise supporting conclusion
1. By increasing avg. price: SS>DD (Since more farmers want to produce FT coffee. Hence SS of overall coffee increases)
2. Increased SS, lowers prices. This affects more Non trade farmers since they do not get the support/ additional money from the government

Falsification Q: : In what scenario will paying extra for fair-trade coffee(FT), not hurt more farmers (FT & NON FT) in developing nations than it helps?
Given SS Outstrips DD-This practice hurts Non FT more since lowered prices due to increased production leads to lowered profits and they get no support from the government .FT farmers too face the brunt, however they are supported by the government.
Falsification Condition: What if the number of Non FT coffee growers is too small as compared to the number of FT coffee farmers in the developing nations? THIS BREAKS THE CONCLUSION: THIS POLICY WILL HELP MORE FARMERS THAN IT DOES NOT

Answer Choice analysis:
(A) Whether there is a way of alleviating the impact of the increased average prices for coffee on non-fair-trade coffee farmers' profits: Irrelevant to conclusion (OOS) We are not concerned whether we can alleviate the impact. We want to know whether the practice of paying extra for FT coffee hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps

(B) What proportion of coffee farmers in developing nations produce fair-trade coffee In line with pre-thinking: Will pass the variance test as well. If there is a higher/significant proportion of FT growers, then this practice may not hurt more farmers than it helps. However if there is a lower proportion of FT farmers, then it might not help more farmers

(C) Whether many coffee farmers in developing nations also derive income from other kinds of farming : (IRRELEVANT TO CONCLUSION)

(D) Whether consumers should pay extra for fair-trade coffee if doing so lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers (IRRELEVANT TO CONCLUSION): This talks about what customers should do. We are only concerned with the farmers and this practice

(E) How fair-trade coffee farmers in developing nations could be helped without lowering profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers : (OOS) We are not concerned with alternate practices

Read the stem and put the pieces in your mind and you'll arrive at the logical fallacy of the assumption even without seeing the answer choices, I knew what the probable answer was after just reading the stem. Don't jump to choices too quickly.

I think this was an incredibly easy Q because of the way the options were written

EYES ON PRIZE = Evaluate strength of the economist's argument meaning if x happens then y happens so z happens etc
(A) Whether there is a way of alleviating the impact of the increased average prices for coffee on non-fair-trade coffee farmers' profits
Even if there is a way - does it affects the argument and help explain whether its a weak or strong argument? - this is just talking about an alternate way to solve the problem

(B) What proportion of coffee farmers in developing nations produce fair-trade coffee
Hold on to it

(C) Whether many coffee farmers in developing nations also derive income from other kinds of farming
How will this help to explain the specifics of argument when we are only concerned with income from coffee - all other comparisons will be unfair

(D) Whether consumers should pay extra for fair-trade coffee if doing so lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers
Does it affects the argument and help explain whether its a weak or strong argument? - this is just talking about an alternate way to solve the problem

(E) How fair-trade coffee farmers in developing nations could be helped without lowering profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers­
Does it affects the argument and help explain whether its a weak or strong argument? - this is just talking about an alternate way to solve the problem

MartyMurray is this a good way to solve this one?