Kerniand’s government restricts the export of unprocessed cashew nuts

Hi experts,
Kindly request for help!!
The argument start from the fact that the Kerniand's government provides some restriction to ensure a low-cost supply.Then,it provides the plausible negative outcome.Followed by the second piece of information is the government's claim that this restriction helps alleviate the urban unemployment.

"HOWEVER" in the last sentence introduces the shift that the policy may actually
contributed to urban unemployment.

Doesn't this mean that the policy may have the unintended effect?
Thanks

Yes, it indicates that the policy has an unintended effect. But could you clarify what your query is - what is the issue if the policy had unintended effect? Option A is still correct because it explains the reason for that unintended effect ( i.e. why the urban unemployment increased - though processing plant workers can retain their jobs because of the policy, the no. of unemployed people still increases in cities because of migration of the cashew producers from villages to cities.)

the answer should be A .
as the issue is about the reduction of unemployment and we need to find the info. which tells the opposite of the govt. plans if the govt has not removed the restriction then indirectly it will increase the unemployment instead of reducing it .
so the option A fits to this

Exactly Similar question is here

https://gmatclub.com/forum/kernland-s-g ... 61930.html

Moderators Bunuel : Could it be consider as topic which needs to be mergerd

Probus

_________________________
Merged the topics. Thank you.

A is the best answer
(A) a lack of profitable crops is drIvIng many small cashew farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities

If farmers stop growing and moving to cities then unemployment will increase

The government is defensive about removing policy restrictions on export. Why? They think it would hurt efforts to reduce unemployment.
The author is of the opinion that the existence of the policy itself might be contributing to the urban unemployment


(A) a lack of profitable crops is driving many small cashew farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities - So the farmers are migrating to cities. This would result in a drop in supply of cashews to the processing plants. These suffering processing plants could result in lay-offs thus contributing to the urban unemployment - Lets Keep this!

(B) some of the by-products of cashew processing are used as raw materials by other Industries located in Kernland’s cities - Farmers supply unprocessed cashews at low-cost to the processing plants. This choice gives additional information about what happens after the cashew is processed. Does it say anything about why the policy is contributing to unemployment? Nope. Reject

(C) the government does not place similar restrictions on the export of any crop other than cashews - Say, the government does not place similar restriction on the export of Barley. The fact remains that the government places restrictions on export of cashews and the government is defensive about lifting this export policy restriction on some grounds(removing policy would hurt efforts to reduce unemployment ) while the author is opposed to the export policy on some grounds (policy contributing to unemployment). Our job is to find why the policy is contributing to unemployment. This choice doesn't provide the reason. Reject

(D) the Income earned by workers in the processing plants Is generally greater than that earned by agricultural laborers in rural areas - Doesn't really matter. Reject

(E) without governmental aId in some form, Kernland’s cashew processing plants would not be able tie compete for sales in world markets - A future scenario about what would happen if Kerland's cashew processing plants do not receive governmental aid! - The plants would not be able to compete for sales in world markets. But what about the unemployment that author claims, has happened at cashew processing plants? What is causing this unemployment? Why is the author suggesting that the policy of export restrictions may have contributed to the unemployment?

A and D leads to unemployment:
Option A:

Government restricts export of unprocessed cashew nuts.
1. The restriction limits the number of farmers who can profitably grow cashews.
2. Many small cashew farmers are driven off their land due to lack of profitability.
3. These farmers move to the cities, increasing the population seeking urban jobs.
4. The increase in job seekers potentially raises urban unemployment rate.

Option D:

1. The income earned by workers in the processing plants is generally greater than that earned by agricultural laborers in rural areas.
2. This wage disparity could potentially attract more people to the cities for higher wages.
3. This migration to cities might increase the number of job seekers in urban areas.
4. The increase in job seekers could potentially raise the urban unemployment rate.

As you can see, both options might potentially lead to an increase in urban unemployment. However, Option A directly ties this outcome to the government's policy on cashew exports, whereas Option D describes a general scenario that might be true irrespective of the specific government policy in question. Therefore, Option A is the better choice to complete the argument.

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.