Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when

Question

Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the price drops sharply when pecans are abundant. Thus, in high-yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses until after the following year’s harvest, hoping for higher prices then. This year’s pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is unlikely, therefore, that any of this year’s crop will be held back.

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

A. Each of the last two years produced record-breaking pecan yields, and an unusually high percentage of last year’s crop was held back.

B. The quality of this year’s pecan crop is typical of the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years.

C. Because of the practice of holding back part of the crop from especially high-yield years, pecan prices have not been subject to sharp fluctuations in recent years.

D. For some pecan growers, this year’s crop was no smaller than last year’s.

E. The last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year, the practice of holding back part of one year’s crop in anticipation of higher prices the next year had not yet become widespread.

MartyMurray · Answer

Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the price drops sharply when pecans are abundant. Thus, in high-yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses until after the following year’s harvest, hoping for higher prices then. This year’s pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is unlikely, therefore, that any of this year’s crop will be held back.

Conclusion of the argument:

It is unlikely, therefore, that any of this year’s crop will be held back.

Support for the conclusion:

This year’s pecan crop was the smallest in five years.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically the following: Because this year was not a high-yield year for pecans, it is unlikely that pecan farmers will hold back any of this year's crop.

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

The correct answer to this Weaken question will show that, even though the evidence is true, the conclusion may not be.

A. Each of the last two years produced record-breaking pecan yields, and an unusually high percentage of last year’s crop was held back.

This choice is interesting.

After all, it indicates that, while this year's crop was small, pecans may still be "abundant" because of the yields of the last two years.

So, farmers may have a reason to hold back part of this year's crop even though it was small.

Thus, this choice cast doubt on the conclusion.

Keep.

B. The quality of this year’s pecan crop is typical of the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years.

The quantity not the "quality" is what causes farmers to hold back part of the crop.

Also, if the crop was "typical," then nothing special occurred to cause farmers to hold back part of the crop even though it was small.

Eliminate.

C. Because of the practice of holding back part of the crop from especially high-yield years, pecan prices have not been subject to sharp fluctuations in recent years.

This indicates that the practice has been working, making the conclusion likely to be true because farmers will likely do what they typically do if it has been working.

Eliminate.

D. For some pecan growers, this year’s crop was no smaller than last year’s.

It has been established that the total pecan crop was "the smallest in five years." Thus, this year was not a high-yield year.

So, even if some growers had big yields like those of the previous year, it is still the case that this year's crop has not made pecans abundant. After all, what makes pecans abundant overall is the total yield of the year, not the individual yields of "some" farmers.

Simply put, whatever "some" farmers have achieved, overall, this year's pecan crop was small.

Thus, regardless of what this choice says, it still makes sense to conclude that farmers will not hold back part of this year's crop.

Eliminate.

E. The last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year, the practice of holding back part of one year’s crop in anticipation of higher prices the next year had not yet become widespread.

What was the case in the past is not a reason to doubt that farmers will not hold back part of the crop this year.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   A

guddo · Answer

Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when pecans are comparatively scarce, but the price drops sharply when pecans are abundant. Thus, in high-yield years, growers often hold back part of their crop in refrigerated warehouses until after the following year’s harvest, hoping for higher prices then. This year’s pecan crop was the smallest in five years. It is unlikely, therefore, that any of this year’s crop will be held back.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

The argument assumes that because this year’s crop is small, pecans will be scarce, so growers will have no reason to hold back any of this year’s crop.  The weakness is that total supply may include stored pecans from earlier crops , not just  this year’s crop .

A. Each of the last two years produced record-breaking pecan yields, and an unusually high percentage of last year’s crop was held back.

This is correct. If last year’s huge crop was heavily held back, then many stored pecans may enter the market after this year’s harvest. That could keep prices low despite this year’s small crop, giving growers a reason to hold back some of this year’s crop.

B. The quality of this year’s pecan crop is typical of the quality of the pecan crops of the previous five years.

This does not weaken the argument. It says nothing about supply, price, or the incentive to hold back pecans.

C. Because of the practice of holding back part of the crop from especially high-yield years, pecan prices have not been subject to sharp fluctuations in recent years.

This does not directly weaken the conclusion. It suggests holding back stabilizes prices, but it does not show that any of this year’s small crop is likely to be held back.

D. For some pecan growers, this year’s crop was no smaller than last year’s.

This is too weak. The argument is about whether any of this year’s crop is likely to be held back overall, and “some growers” does not show a broad reason to expect holding back.

E. The last time the pecan crop was as small as it was this year, the practice of holding back part of one year’s crop in anticipation of higher prices the next year had not yet become widespread.

This does not weaken the argument. It gives historical background but does not show that growers have a reason to hold back this year’s crop.

Answer: (A)

vanshikajain1606 · Answer

A - If most of last year's crop was help back, it would have been used this year. Then this year's yield even though it was lowest, would have to be kept for next year so that the current year's price don't drop further

janvibatra.50 · Answer

Can C not weaken the question by implying that since the past few years have not seen any big fluctuations in prices, farmers might want to continue gatekeeping their crops in case an big shift occurs?

guddo · Answer

C does not weaken because it talks about the effect of holding back crops from especially high-yield years.

The conclusion is about this year’s crop, which was the smallest in five years. C gives no reason to think growers would hold back part of a scarce crop.

Also, saying prices have not fluctuated sharply does not mean growers will hold back crops “in case” prices change. That is an extra assumption.

So  C supports the general usefulness of the storage practice , but only for the usual situation:  high-yield years , not a low-yield year like this one.

egmat · Answer

Hi janvibatra.50,

Your instinct to test C is good, but the reasoning you're attaching to it isn't actually inside the stimulus.

Let's pin down what the argument says growers do, and then check whether C gives any reason to do it here.

What the stimulus tells us about when growers hold back

They hold back  in high-yield years , because abundance pushes prices down. The trigger is  abundance now , with the hope of selling into scarcity next year. The stimulus does  not  say growers hold back as insurance against some unknown future shift - that's a motive you're importing from outside.

Now read C with that lens

"Because of the practice of holding back part of the crop from especially high-yield years, pecan prices have not been subject to sharp fluctuations in recent years."

C is telling us the practice has been  working  - it has stabilized prices. But notice what C does  not  say:

- It doesn't say this year is a high-yield year (it isn't - it's the smallest in  five  years).
- It doesn't say growers hold back from small-yield years.
- It doesn't say growers are anticipating any big shift.

So C gives no mechanism that would make growers hold back from  this  small crop. If anything, C reinforces the argument: the practice worked, and the conditions that trigger it (a high-yield year) aren't present, so it's unlikely to happen this year.

The word-play test - when would C weaken?

Watch how the right answer shifts if we change C slightly:

- If C said  "growers hold back even in low-yield years to guard against future price drops"  - that would weaken, because it would directly attack the link between "small crop" and "no hold-back."
- As actually written, C only describes a  past stabilizing effect , not a  present incentive  to hold back a small crop.

That's why  A  is the real weakener: it tells us a huge amount of last year's crop was held back, which means stored pecans will flood the market alongside this year's small harvest - making total supply abundant again, and giving growers a reason to hold back even now.

Answer: A

Ishaan01 · Answer

The conclusion says it is unlikely that "any" of this year's crop will be held back, but this option gives us reason to say that some growers had not the smallest growth, so it can be a reason for saying that they could held back hence weakening that not any of this year's crop will be held back. This is super tough, given an answer, I usually find out that any of the option can be molded to suggest logic, and these questions are not as logical as they should have been. Why is gmat going in this direction.

egmat · Answer

Hi Ishaan01,

You've read the conclusion correctly: it does say it is unlikely that  any  of this year's crop will be held back, so in theory even one grower deciding to hold back could dent it. Your instinct to hunt for "some growers" is a reasonable one.

The slip is in  why  a grower holds back. Look at what the stimulus actually says triggers the behavior:

"In  high-yield years , growers often hold back part of their crop... hoping for higher prices then."

The trigger is  abundance driving prices down , not how a single grower's crop compares to last year's. A grower holds back only when they expect the price to be low - i.e., when pecans are plentiful.

Now read D with that lens:

"For some pecan growers, this year's crop was no smaller than last year's."

This only tells us a few growers had a normal-sized crop. But the overall market is still "the smallest in five years," so pecans are  scarce  and prices are  high . A grower sitting on a normal crop in a high-price year has every reason to  sell now , not hold back. So D gives no reason to expect holding back - it's a true-but-irrelevant detail about individual crop sizes, not about the price incentive.

That's exactly what makes  A  the real weakener: it shows that last year's record crop was heavily stored and will flood the market this year, making total supply  abundant  again - which pushes prices down and revives the reason to hold back.

Quick word-play test to lock this in.  Turn one knob on D and watch what happens:

- As written: "some growers' crop was no smaller than last year's" - says nothing about price - no reason to hold back.
- If it instead said: "this year's  stored pecans from prior crops  will make total supply abundant" -  now  prices fall - reason to hold back - it weakens.

The concept: in this argument, only  market abundance  creates the incentive to hold back - individual crop size doesn't.

Answer: A

Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when

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

Newspaper article: Pecan growers get a high price for their crop when

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