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?


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.
_________________

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

For weaken questions:
Negate the conclusion and then look for a support to the negated conclusion.
NEGATION: removing the tariff ON EXPORTS would NOT seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment.
only E supports this.

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.

I am still not able to understand how E is the answer.
Author says lifting tariff > farmer profit will increase.
Author also says that remove tariff > URBAN unemployment will increase

Option E: Lack of profit causing people to move to URBAN areas > unemployment increase.
We need something that weakens the second statement that author is making which is the conclusion. But from author's statements, once tariff is removed farmers profit will increase > less people move to urban areas (since now lack of profitable crops is making them move). What am i missing here?