rnn
not sure why a is incorrect - can i get some help please
SarahPurewal said it succinctly here, but I'm happy to give this more of a deep dive!
Remember that the conclusion here is:
SarahPurewal
this practice (paying extra for fair-trade coffee) may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps.
Heres how the argument breaks down:
Paying extra for fair-trade coffee raises average prices for coffee (including fair-trade and non-fair trade).
The rise in average prices for coffee encourages more coffee to be produced.
The increase in coffee production lowers prices for non-fair-trade coffee.
The lower prices for non-fair-trade coffee lowers profits for non-fair-trade coffee farmers.
Therefore, paying extra for fair-trade coffee may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps.
Notice that the author is making a logical leap between those last two steps. The author describes an impact on
non-fair-trade farmers, then concludes that
more farmers, in general, may by hurt than helped.
So to evaluate the strength of this argument, it would be certainly help us to know what proportion of coffee farmers in developing nations produce fair-trade coffee (or could beneficially switch from producing non-fair-trade coffee to fair-trade coffee). This is why we keep choice (B); it would help us decide whether to accept the logical leap that the author is making from non-fair-trade farmers to farmers, in general.
Now, let's take a closer look at choice (A):
Quote:
(A) Whether there is a way of alleviating the impact of the increased average prices for coffee on non-fair-trade coffee farmers' profits
And for good measure, let's refresh on the conclusion we're trying to evaluate:
Quote:
this practice (paying extra for fair-trade coffee) may hurt more farmers in developing nations than it helps.
The information in choice (A) refers to action taking place
after non-fair-trade farmers' profits have already been reduced by the practice of paying extra for fair-trade coffee. Is this what we're being asked to evaluate?
Nope. While it would be nice to know whether there's a way to help negatively impacted farmers, this information has absolutely nothing to do with the specific logical argument being made by the author: That paying extra for fair-trade coffee may cause harm to more coffee farmers in developing nations than it helps. Even worse, choice (A) remains focused on non-fair-trade farmers, which means we still have no information to evaluate impact on farmers overall.
We're not being asked to evaluate how the impact of increased average prices could be alleviated, and we're not being asked to evaluate an argument that's only about non-fair-trade farmers. That's why we eliminate (A) and stick with (B).
I hope this helps!