Last visit was: 15 Jul 2025, 00:35 It is currently 15 Jul 2025, 00:35
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
reply2spg
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Last visit: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
4,338
 [379]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 271
Kudos: 4,338
 [379]
33
Kudos
Add Kudos
346
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,353
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,966
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,353
Kudos: 68,544
 [156]
98
Kudos
Add Kudos
54
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
chandru42
Joined: 21 May 2009
Last visit: 06 Feb 2023
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
128
 [30]
Given Kudos: 50
Posts: 62
Kudos: 128
 [30]
27
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 15 July 2025
Posts: 4,601
Own Kudos:
32,356
 [4]
Given Kudos: 687
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,601
Kudos: 32,356
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Solution

Passage Analysis

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.
-Kernland taxes export of unprocessed cashewnuts heavily.
-The purpose is to ensure that the cashewnuts are sold to processing plants in the country.


If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.
-If the tax is removed, and if unprocessed cashews can be sold at world market prices.
-Then, this will help more farmers to make a profit from cashew farming.


However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas,
-But, currently, considering that all processing plants are in the cities,

removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.
- eliminating the tax will negatively affect government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment in the coming five years.

Prethinking

We are told that a high tariff ensures unprocessed cashew nuts are sold in Kernland plants.
If tariffs were removed, farmers would benefit from it, but efforts to reduce urban unemployment will be hampered.

Weaken framework

What new information will decrease one’s belief in the conclusion that removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years

Given that
-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.
-All the processing plants are in urban areas.

Weakener 1

Any information that suggests that- Not removing the tariff leads to an increase in urban unemployment.

Weakener 2

Any information that suggests that- Removing tariffs will decrease unemployment .


Answer Choice Analysis


A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Our conclusion is concerned only about the relation between the mentioned tariff and urban unemployment. The processing per se and its by products are out of scope. Hence this answer is incorrect.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
What happens in other countries is beyond the scope of this argument. Hence this is an incorrect answer.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Option suggests more people are farming (in rural areas) than in processing (urban areas). We are concerned only about urban unemployment. Farmers are naturally in the rural areas, so their jobs or job loss for whatsoever reason and comparison to urban workers is out of scope. The fact that there are more folks involved in rural/farming does not impact the conclusion about urban unemployment getting hit.


D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enable cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
This option is not concerned about urban unemployment at all. Hence this option is also irrelevant.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
This option is in line with weakener #1
If currently, the presence of the tariff causes an increase in unemployment in the urban areas (due to migration of farmers to urban areas searching for jobs, say -one reason), that means removing this tariff is not going to seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years. If the tariff is removed, it will only make the government's job easier.
Therefore, option E is the correct answer.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,108
Own Kudos:
74,328
 [2]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,108
Kudos: 74,328
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.


Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack
­

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.

Premises:
If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews.
All the processing plants are in urban areas.

Conclusion:
Removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.

The conclusion is that “removing the tariff” would hamper the aim of “reducing urban unemployment”. Removing the tariff could lead to harm to the domestic processing industry and hence add to unemployment. We need to weaken this i.e. we need to say that removing the tariff may not hamper the aim of reducing urban unemployment. That is, we need to say that even if raw cashews are freely sold to the world, urban jobs may keep increasing.

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

If the tariffs are removed and cashew processing industry suffers, these industries may suffer too. Hence urban unemployment situation may worsen. It doesn’t weaken our argument.

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



We are talking about whether to remove tariffs on cashew export. What subsidy other countries provide to their processing plants is irrelevant.


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



It doesn’t matter whether more farmers will benefit vs the number of urban workers who will lose their job. Our argument is discussing whether removal of tariff will increase urban unemployment. So, the only numbers we are concerned with are urban unemployment numbers right now vs what they will be if tariffs are removed. 



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



Removing tariffs will perhaps make processed nuts uncompetitive and the processed nuts industry will suffer. Hence it doesn’t weaken our argument. 



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



This tells us that more and more farmers are leaving their land and going to cities. If tariffs are removed, these farmers may start doing profitable farming and hence may not go to cities. If tariffs stay, more and more farmers may continue going to cities and worsening the employment situation there. So, removing tariffs may actually benefit the farmers and hence, benefit the employment statistics of cities. This does weaken our conclusion.
Correct.

Answer (E)

Discussion on Weaken Questions: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k­
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,847
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,847
Kudos: 8,640
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

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.

Conclusion- 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.

We need to find an option that weakens the conclusion

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

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Does not impact the conclusion. Irrelevant.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
The conclusion talks about urban unemployment. The fact that more people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them does not tell us about the proportion of people engaged in processing cashews or about urban employment. Eliminate.


D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
If anything, D is a strengthener.


E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
E gives us another reason for the increasing unemployment in urban areas. If more people are moving into the cities for employment, removing the tariffs would only benefit them/domestic processing plants. E weakens the conclusion.
General Discussion
User avatar
ritula
Joined: 18 May 2008
Last visit: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
3,089
 [3]
Posts: 695
Kudos: 3,089
 [3]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Definitely E. Here we r concerned abt unemployment in urban areas. E mentions that bcos of lack of emloyment opportunities many youths frm villages r forced 2 move 2 cities 4 employment which adds to the unemployment scenario in C. so if tehse youths will have ample opportunity in village itself, the problem in urban areas will be solved.

reply2spg
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 farmers in
Kernland off their land and into the cities.

Not convinced by the OA
User avatar
getmba
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Last visit: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 110
Own Kudos:
765
 [11]
Given Kudos: 13
Posts: 110
Kudos: 765
 [11]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I would go with E.

And the explanation is:
Removing tariff increases urban unemployment

What if there is another scenario which increases urban unemployment. That would weaken the argument.
In E, "lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities" increases urban unemployment. So we found an alternative cause for an effect.
User avatar
eresh
Joined: 05 Jul 2009
Last visit: 27 May 2018
Posts: 107
Own Kudos:
104
 [3]
Given Kudos: 5
 Q48  V27
Posts: 107
Kudos: 104
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
After seeing every comment, I am very confused as I Picked 'C' as the answer. Aint it work the following way?

Cause------------> Effect

Removing the tariff------------> serious hamper of the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment ~= Increase in the number of Unemployed people in urban area.

Now, in case of E, if the tariff is removed, farmers will have at least one profitable crop, thus will not move(or move little) to urban area. So they will not move to urban area. However, the urban processing folks will still loose jobs as most of the cashew nuts will be imported to outside (Is the logic flawed?). In short, here Cause-----------> effects, so E actually strengthens the argument.

From another point of view, E shows that if there is tariff (the prevailing situation continues), the number of farmers will increase in urban area for the movement and probably will create more unemployment (though not mentioned specifically that the migrated farmers will be jobless, I am taking it as a general assumption), thereby worsening the unemployment situation. In short, Absence of Cause-----------> Creates the effect.

I am totally confused as how to attack the argument (Reading the CR Bible too much I guess)

Now for 'C',

Even if you remove the tariff, the effect will be minimal as more people are engage in farming than producing. We may say that governments effort to reduce unemployment in urban area will not be "seriously hampered".

Please help me find the error in reasoning on choice 'E'. What is the OA?
User avatar
perfectstranger
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Last visit: 27 May 2013
Posts: 139
Own Kudos:
4,661
 [3]
Given Kudos: 28
Posts: 139
Kudos: 4,661
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
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?

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

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


Well IMO C and E is negative choices but C is irrevelant to the conclusion. The conclusion states,'' removing
the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment
over the next five years'' . I may ask what's the reason for this urban unemployment. Then this conclusion would be weaken. IMO E
User avatar
GMATPill
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Last visit: 17 Sep 2020
Posts: 2,260
Own Kudos:
3,784
 [9]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,260
Kudos: 3,784
 [9]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.


Argument: Removing tariff would reduce employment in urban areas where the domestic processing plants are

Support: Domestic processing plants buy the unprocessed cashew nuts at a "lower" price, thanks to the high tariff that is imposed when the unprocessed cashew nuts are exported out of the country and sold to foreigners


Weakening strategies:
1) Opposite Argument
2) Opposite Support
3) Discredit the link between support and argument

Here, my initial hunch is that the "support" is not necessarily linked to the "argument". The keyword is employment. How are domestic processing plants' buying cashew nuts at a discounted price...how is that linked to employment? Specifically, "urban" employment.

If we look at (E), we DO talk specifically about urban when they mention movement of farmers into the cities.
(E) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

If (E) is true...then when import tariff is REMOVED then farmers DO PROFIT. If farmers profit, we know they don't MOVE into the cities, they instead stay on the farms. So in this case, since they don't go into the city, we do not have a lot of unemployed farmers in the city. And thus, the employment rate stays healthy.

So from the beginning, we may think of (E) as saying due to lack of profitable crop, farmers are entering cities. Presumably they are unemployed and this reduces employment rate in the city. But THEN, import tariffs are removed, and suddenly we HAVE a profitable crop. Thus will keep farmers on their farm, away from the cities and employment rates in the city are not affected. Thus the government's efforts to INCREASE urban employment is NOT affected - which is opposite the conclusion reached in the passage.
User avatar
WpackAlumDukeBound
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Last visit: 20 Aug 2013
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
127
 [2]
Given Kudos: 18
Status:Attending Duke in May!
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Posts: 18
Kudos: 127
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
score780
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

Remember for CR questions that involve weakening or strengthening we need to focus on the argument (conclusion)

Conclusion: 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

So we're looking for a statement that will weaken the argument that removing the tariff's would hamper the effort to reduce unemployment.

Remember in CR questions all the statements in the passage are considered true unless otherwise stated.

Facts:
- The tariff's are driving the farmers to sell the cashews to domestic processing plants at lower than world market prices.
- If the tariff's were removed the farmers could sell at higher prices to world markets and profit more.

A.) Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics. This doesn't tell us anything about the unemployment issue in the conclusion. It implies that the by-products of the cashews are keeping other plants open (the paints and plastics), so this will strengthen the argument slightly, but even still it's a stretch to infer that.

B.) Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants. This tells us that other countries governments are subsidizing processing plants to keep them open. This is a useless statement that neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

C.) More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them. This statement tells you about the ratio to farmers to processors. Farmers>Processors. This has no impact on the unemployment of the processors if the tariff's were removed. It only tells you if the tariff's were removed the smaller party would be impacted more, which is still undesirable. If we had 50,000 farmers and 49,500 processors, it's still a huge loss for Kernland and this statement could still be satisfied.

D.) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices. This statement strengthens the argument of the author. The tariff's MUST stay in place so that the Kernland processors can sell the cashews at a competitive price. This is the opposite of what we're looking for.

E.) A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities. BINGO! Exactly what we're looking for. It hits on both of our facts from the passage and finds another cause for the unemployment problem other than the conclusion that was stated. Fact from passage: The cashew sells are not profitable to the farmers. Effect - Because of this the farmers are coming into the city adding to the unemployment problem. If the tariff's were removed, the farmers could farm cashews and sell them for a higher profit, which would prevent them from moving into the urban areas creating less competition for jobs, which would lower the unemployment.
User avatar
pqhai
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Last visit: 26 Nov 2015
Posts: 868
Own Kudos:
8,828
 [7]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: United States
Posts: 868
Kudos: 8,828
 [7]
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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 farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

Hi 2013gmat. I'm glad to help.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

The logic of the question is:

- High tariff on the export --> nuts are sold to domestic processing plants which are in urban area --> unemployment rate in urban area reduces
- Remove high tariff on the export --> nuts are sold to world market --> fewer job in processing plants --> unemployment rate in urban area.

The conclusion: Remove high tariff leads to high unemployment in urban.
Assumption: high tariff affects unemployment rate directly.

In order to weaken the conclusion, we have to scenarios:
(1) Attack the conclusion: Remove high tariff --> unemployment rate in urban will not be high. This is a extreme case, which undermine the conclusion completely (100%)
(2) Attack the assumption: There is another reason leading to high unemployment in urban. Thus, the removing of high tariff is not the main cause. On the other hand, the unemployment rate in urban will not be affected by the high tariff –OR-- the removing of high tariff.

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

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

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Wrong. Out of scope. We only talk about Kernland.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Wrong. Out of scope. We do not have information about the proportion between people farming cashew and people processing cashew. Thus, the ratio does not help to weaken.

D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
Wrong. Out of scope. We do not talk about how much cashew processors earn. Just focus on the relationship between “high tariff” and “unemployment in urban”.

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
Correct. Only E makes sense. Because E shows that the main cause leading to unemployment in urban is the lack of profitable crops. When the high tariff still exists –OR-- is removed, if the farmers earn too little from their crops, they will not have motivation to continue farming. They will move to cities, unemployment rate in urban is still high.

Hope it helps.
avatar
Sueds
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Last visit: 30 Apr 2018
Posts: 2
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 132
Posts: 2
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I'm still confused with this sentence "If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices". Does it mean that if the tariff were higher (rather than lower), then farmers could sell unprocessed cashews at higher prices?
User avatar
GMATNinjaTwo
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Last visit: 09 Jul 2025
Posts: 235
Own Kudos:
1,077
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,070
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 235
Kudos: 1,077
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sueds
I'm still confused with this sentence "If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices". Does it mean that if the tariff were higher (rather than lower), then farmers could sell unprocessed cashews at higher prices?
Sueds, in this context, "lift" actually means to remove, revoke, or rescind. For example, "During a state of emergency, the police imposed a curfew. The curfew was lifted after one week."

So in this sentence, we are talking about removing the tariffs, not raising the tariffs.
avatar
phuongdoan
Joined: 31 Oct 2018
Last visit: 28 May 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
5
 [3]
Given Kudos: 98
Location: Viet Nam
Posts: 4
Kudos: 5
 [3]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
=> Conclusion: Tariff causes urban unemployment. Emphasize : URBAN, not any other areas.
= > TO weaken conclusion: There is another force besides tariff that can cause URBAN unemployment.
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.
=> by-product is out of scope.
B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
Subsidize - out of scope
C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
=> does not tell anything about unemployment. if Tariff is lifted, then more profit for more farmers, that's all to say.
D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
=> this is what is stated in question (no tariff => sell at world prices => profit) . simply rephrase. OUT
E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
=> this states an alternative cause. if you put emphasize on URBAN unemployment you will see E is correct. Higher URBAN unemployment as a result of the MOVEMENT of unemployed people from OTHER PLACES who come to the urban areas. therefore, tariff may or may not be the cause of the problem.
E is correct.
User avatar
shanks2020
Joined: 02 Dec 2018
Last visit: 21 Mar 2024
Posts: 239
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 239
Kudos: 36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
If you want to find a statement that weakens an argument, you have to start by understanding that argument. Start with the conclusion: "removing the {high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts} would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years."

Now make sure you understand the structure of the argument--how does the author arrive at that conclusion?

  • The first sentence tells us about the high tariff that is currently in place and that ensures that unprocessed cashew nuts are sold to domestic processing plants.
  • The second sentence tell us that more farmers could profit by growing cashews if the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices.
  • We can infer that selling cashews at world market prices (without the tariff) would be more profitable for Kernland farmers than selling the cashews to domestic processing plants. In other words, the price at which farmers currently sell unprocessed cashews to domestic plants is LOWER than the world market price, but because of the high tariff the farmers cannot take advantage of the higher world market price.
  • If the tariff were removed and the farmers began exporting more of their unprocessed cashews, sales of unprocessed cashews to domestic processing plants would be reduced. If the domestic plants have fewer cashews to process, the plants, which are all located in urban areas, would likely need fewer employees, potentially leading to layoffs.
  • Thus, according to the author, removing the tariff would likely lead to a loss of jobs at domestic processing plants. This job loss would "seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years."

Now, which of the answer choices most seriously weakens this argument?

Quote:
A. Some of the byproducts of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Regardless of what cashew processing plants do with some of the byproducts, removing the tariff might still lower the amount of work for domestic plants, leading to a loss of jobs and possibly hampering the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment. This fact does not impact the author's argument, so (A) can be eliminated.

Quote:
B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
We are told that "if the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews." This implies that Kernland farmers would, in the absence of the tariff, sell more cashews to other countries and sell fewer cashews to domestic plants. Statement (B) does not impact this reasoning, so (B) can be eliminated.

Quote:
C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Just because MORE people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews does not mean that the number of people engaged in processing cashews is small. If a significant portion of Kernland's population is engaged in processing cashews, there could be a significant number of lost jobs if more cashews are exported. Choice (C) does not necessarily impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

Quote:
D. Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world-market prices enable cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
This statement does not weaken the author's argument. In fact, if true, this statement probably strengthens the author's argument. Currently, cashew processors in Kernland can sell processed nuts at competitive prices. If the tariff is lifted, cashew processors would have to raise their prices to maintain current profit levels, and this might lead to a decline in sales if some consumers are unwilling to pay those higher prices. A decline in sales would make it more likely that domestic plant workers might lose their jobs. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities
If an increasing number of small farmers leave their land to go to the cities, there will be fewer farmers to grow and harvest unprocessed cashews in Kernland. Gradually, the domestic plants might have fewer domestic cashews to process and will either have to import cashews at the higher world market price or reduce plant operations. Thus, statement (E) suggests that domestic plant workers might lose their jobs if the tariff is NOT removed. Furthermore, with more and more people (the former small farmers who left their land) moving to the cities looking for work, it is quite possible that urban unemployment will rise. If statement (E) is true, removing the tariff would encourage more farmers to stay in Kernland and grow cashews that need to be processed. Thus, statement (E) is evidence that removing the tariff will NOT seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment. This weakens the author's argument, so (E) is the best answer.

Hi GMATNinja

In E) it is given that "a lack of profitable crop". But from the argument we have inferred that cashed is still profitable, be it sold at world market price or with tariff to domestic market. It is just a matter of more or less profit. Then how does Option E)impact the argument, since E talks about "Lack" of profitable crop?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,353
Own Kudos:
68,544
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,966
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,353
Kudos: 68,544
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shanks2020
Hi GMATNinja

In E) it is given that "a lack of profitable crop". But from the argument we have inferred that cashed is still profitable, be it sold at world market price or with tariff to domestic market. It is just a matter of more or less profit. Then how does Option E)impact the argument, since E talks about "Lack" of profitable crop?
You're right, we can assume that cashews are profitable from this part of the passage:

    "If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews."

From this, we know that some farmers can profit by growing cashews. We can't tell whether farmers who keep their cashews in Kernland and sell to domestic processing plants are the only ones that can make a profit or if exporters can also make a profit.

What we can tell is if the tariffs were lifted more farmers could profit by growing cashews.

(E) tells us:
Quote:
E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
This doesn't tell us whether the crops mentioned are cashews or not, all we know is that an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland are leaving their farms and moving to the cities. This increasing number of small farmers will be looking for employment in Kernland's cities. If they cannot find jobs then they will be added to the list of unemployed people in Kernland's urban areas.

We know that removing the tariffs on cashews would allow more farmers to make a profit -- this could keep some of these farmers on their farms and prevent them being added to the number of urban unemployed.

It's not a case of more or less profit, this argument depends on the number of people that are able to make a profit.

This means that removing the tariffs would help the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment, weakening the argument.

That's why (E) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,304
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,304
Kudos: 283
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi avigutman - i did get the answer correct for this q

reply2spg
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?


But, I wanted to test if i really understood what "Weakening the argument" meant with this option F i made up -->

Quote:
(Option F) The total number of jobs in urban areas will stay exactly the same after the tarrifs are removed.

Per my understanding -- if option F was true -- the removal of tarrifs WILL NOT SERIOUSLY HAMPER the goverments goals (of reducing unemployment) as the impact of removing tarrifs is zero on jobs

Thus i would say -- option F would also be a weakener

Just curious if my understanding of weakener in this context is correct.
User avatar
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 06 Jul 2025
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 1,893
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
(Option F) The total number of jobs in urban areas will stay exactly the same after the tarrifs are removed.

Per my understanding -- if option F was true -- the removal of tarrifs WILL NOT SERIOUSLY HAMPER the goverments goals (of reducing unemployment) as the impact of removing tarrifs is zero on jobs

Thus i would say -- option F would also be a weakener

Yes, I agree jabhatta2. An answer choice claiming that the total number of jobs won't change after tariff removal does weaken the argument.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7353 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts