It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 11:43

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 341 [1], given: 0

Location: Taipei
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 04:07
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (02:45) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 3 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument ?

A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

B. other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small famers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

Kudos [?]: 341 [1], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5206

Kudos [?]: 434 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 04:49
1
KUDOS
I`d say (A). The domestically unemployed could switch to paint manufaturing instead.

1:41

Kudos [?]: 434 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 840

Kudos [?]: 86 [1], given: 1

GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 05:59
1
KUDOS
GMATT73 wrote:
I`d say (A). The domestically unemployed could switch to paint manufaturing instead.

1:41

But, if cashews are exported unprocessed, then the byproducts wouldn't be available either.
If the majority of the population is involved in farming cashews, then the increase in unemployment due to closure of processing plants may be offset by increased opportunities in farming. So, C for me.

Kudos [?]: 86 [1], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 130

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 15:30
1
KUDOS
I selected E because then their problem of those that process the cashews would become a larger problem thus defeating the purpose of the tariff... it would increase the amount of unemployment
_________________

A.P.

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 362

Kudos [?]: 49 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 17:42
1
KUDOS
argument is for "not" removing the tariff because of urban unemployment

A. strengthens the argument ..
B out of scope
C. so?.. it is about urban unemployment
D. strengthens the argument
E. having the tariff causes farmers to move to cities causing more unemployment

So E

Kudos [?]: 49 [1], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 323 [1], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 20:27
1
KUDOS
E

This means the unemployment in urban areas is due to problems in rural areas and if tarriff is removed then both parties will benefit.
_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 323 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 363

Kudos [?]: 75 [1], given: 3

Schools: Kellogg School of Management

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 21:29
1
KUDOS
E

Kudos [?]: 75 [1], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 439

Kudos [?]: 79 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2006, 21:35
1
KUDOS
choose (E) using POE.
_________________

http://mba2010dreams.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: 79 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 326

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2006, 05:23
1
KUDOS
Yup would be E....

Kudos [?]: 11 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 702

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2006, 12:15
1
KUDOS

Information about by products like plastic are not given sufficient.

Kudos [?]: 13 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 790

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2006, 13:22
gk3.14 wrote:
argument is for "not" removing the tariff because of urban unemployment

A. strengthens the argument ..
B out of scope
C. so?.. it is about urban unemployment
D. strengthens the argument
E. having the tariff causes farmers to move to cities causing more unemployment

So E

Nailed it. E it is...
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 2

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2006, 13:44
1
KUDOS
E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small famers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

If more farmers are going into the cities unemployment may rise even if the tariffs are removed.

Kudos [?]: 106 [1], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 399

Kudos [?]: 31 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2006, 14:18
1
KUDOS
Going with E...

C was close for me... I was thinking that if they do not do take this action then more farmers could be out of jobs.. hence increasing umemployment

Kudos [?]: 31 [1], given: 0

28 Aug 2006, 14:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by