GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 14 Aug 2018, 18:33

### 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

# Partly because of bad weather, but also partly because some

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 22:47
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Partly because of bad weather, but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa.

Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously

I don't agree with the OA

Cheers,
Unplugged

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 232

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 22:51
This is an old question, clearly C, how's your opinion about it ?
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 163

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 23:08
unplugged wrote:
Partly because of bad weather, but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa.

Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously

I've seen many similar types of questions where someone is flawed in saying they're better off not switching from A to B, the answer is usually phrased as (C), so I think I'll go with that.

It does kinda make sense; pepper would not have increased in price, if there were still plenty of people growing a larger quantity of it.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 409
Schools: Kellogg Class of 2012

### Show Tags

22 May 2009, 23:16
The stem outlines 2 reasons for reduction in production and hence subsequent increase in prices - 1) bad weather and 2)Switching of crops

The question, while saying' because of the rise in prices of pepper, the farmers who switched to cocoa are no better of than the farmers who had not switched', wants us to prove that the above conclusion is unwarranted. This means that the only consideration these observers had in mind was price(profits)

I see 2 ways to prove that the conclusion can be unwarranted

1) if the farmers who had switched had not foreseen that the prices could have gone up, they would not have switched crops(A)

2) the farmers who switched are no better than the ones who have not switched when the prices of cocoa fall(E)

Is my reasoning correct?

Cheers,
Unplugged

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Re: Pepper growers &nbs [#permalink] 22 May 2009, 23:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Partly because of bad weather, but also partly because some

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.