Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency res

Question

Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about one percent of the cheese that it inspects. Since the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible, whereas the cost of maintaining the agency is not, the agency's cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides.

Knowing the answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the lawmaker's argument?

A. Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia?

B. Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?

C. Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?

D. Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board?

E. How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?

thevenus · Accepted Answer

it wasn't an easy one !

Lawmaker's thought:- 
The importation board or the agency has less work and what it typically does? refuse 1% of the total incoming shipment of cheese?why to employ this agency and pay them well where as the import can simply go because 1% is anyway a small figure to look upon.

Evaluation of argument may be for positive or negative aspect and if we look at (C)

we will get to know that whether the agency is refusing only one exporter(brand) or many brands ? because if it is only one brand then we can stop or ban that brand and let the other brands continue and so e would not need this agency to monitor all this import.  BUT IF  there are many brands who are getting rejected then it means that the agency is doing a good job in scrutinizing the good import .

GODSPEED · Answer

My 2 cents:

Assumption in the argument is: 1% rejection is not enuf to offset the cost to the agency - the "1%" is not helping.... (given the time constraint - i just prephrase this much) - Basis my prephrase, i started looking for, how could i bring in the support statement, which can help evaluate the value of that 1%?

My reasoning against each option:

A. Doesn't help, irrelevant
B. Doesn't help, digresses from the point of "1%" rejection
 C. It reinforces the fact that the "1%" rejection rate is helping in detering cheese exporters to export low quality cheese 
D. How does it matter? so irrelevant
E. How means of disposal help? so irrelevant

Cheers
GODSPEED

crackHSW · Answer

Clear C ,if the Board is removed because of cost reasons , it is possible that cheese exporters start sending in cheap products , its the fear of the Board's rejection that is keeping the cheese exporters on toes. The board is acting as a watchdog

semwal · Answer

THE CONTRAST IS is that - only 1 % of cheese is rejected as against Maintaining a HUGE ORGANISATION......

but dont forget, if you remove the IMPORTATION BOARD.......instead of 1 % rejection and 99 % good cheese you get--------you may/will get 100% bad cheese.....
 SO NOW YOU DECIDE-----IMPORTATION BOARD or 100 % BAD CHEESE.  Hence Ans " C".......

kudos if you please.......

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

crimes are less in number does not mean we do not require security. It can mean that security is doing its best job and that is the reason why crimes are less in number. i.e., inspection matters to the exporters and discourages them to ship less quality cheese. This possibility can be helpful in evalulating our doubt leading us to option C directly. :wink:

Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about one percent of the cheese that it inspects. Since the health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible, whereas the cost of maintaining the agency is not, the agency's cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides.

Knowing the answer to which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the lawmaker's argument?

A. Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia?

B. Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?

C. Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia?

D. Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board?

E. How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

This cant help us. E. How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of?........ this is not our concern at all :roll:

OFS

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: Cheese Board, the agency responsible for inspecting all wholesale shipments of cheese entering Goronia from abroad and rejecting shipments that fail to meet specified standards, rejects about 1% of the cheese that it inspects. The health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that one percent would be negligible. The cost of maintaining the agency is not negligible. Conclusion: The agency's cost clearly outweighs the benefits it provides. We need to evaluate whether the agency’s cost does outweigh the benefits. Are there any other benefits it provides that make its cost worthwhile? (A) Are any of the types of cheeses that are imported into Goronia also produced in Goronia? It doesn’t matter whether the imported cheese are locally produced too. Closing down the agency will not impact the import of cheese in any way. It will only stop its inspection. We are looking for some additional benefit of the agency. (B) Has the Cheese Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself? Whether its cost has reduced or not doesn’t matter. We are saying that currently its benefits do not justify its cost, whatever that may be since health consequences and associated costs of not rejecting that 1% are negligible. So, whatever the current cost is, high or low, it is still not justified. (C) Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Cheese Importation Board deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese to Goronia? Yes, this option tells us that the agency provides another benefit – deterrence. The cost of not having a deterrent to ensure good quality could be high. If we answer “Yes” – The board does deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese. Then possibly, the agency’s benefits outweigh costs. “No” – The board does not deter many cheese exporters from shipping substandard cheese i.e. suppliers will not start sending substandard cheese. They will maintain the quality and only 1% will be substandard (as it is now). Then possibly, the agency’s costs outweigh its benefits. The two answers affect the conclusion differently. Hence, this is the correct option. (D) Are there any exporters of cheese to Goronia whose merchandise is never rejected by the Cheese Importation Board? Any particular exporters are out of scope of our argument. (E) How is the cheese rejected by the Cheese Importation Board disposed of? Irrelevant Answer (C) Discussion on Useful to Evaluate Questions: https://youtu.be/1JtHjH1lWZc

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency res

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

Goronian lawmaker: Goronia's Cheese Importation Board, the agency res

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