Gmatprep550
I hope this helps you out:

Argument :

↑ prices of pepper = that of cocoa --------> Not better off after switching P->C <----- ( Has to be weakened)

Prethinking: To find a Reason that makes the switched pepper growers better off! Thereby weakening the above argument

Process of Elimination :

A) Neutral statement which is somehow Supporting the contention that the growers are not at a better off situation now : as they didnt anticipate that the prices would rise so high, making them no better off
B) This Strengthens cuz if the initial cost of switching was substantial then it implies that ↑ price of Pepper + the ↑ Switching cost makes them in worst condition and not better off
C) Weakens by making the Growers Better off: If the supplies would have been large enough , prices would had been low showing that the growers are at a better situation by shifting to cocoa
D) Supports the argument : that if after switching to Cocoa, it is still prone to bad weather then growers are no better and hence are worse
E) Supports: Sayn 'as more ppl are joining then eventually price of Cocoal will go down and hence the are No Better off'

____________________________________

Kudos if you like my explaination
All the best with your preparation
Happy Learning

It’s really noisy in my office so don’t take my explanation as gospel because my concentration is not 100% of what it would otherwise be. The question tries to get you to complete the passage and you have to pick the answer than makes sense with the rest of the passage.

The passage starts by saying that farmers switched to coke crops because it was higher priced. But the world produced less pepper annually than it consumed. Therefore, the price went up to actually match that of coke.
Then the author says that some people WRONGLY conclude that the rise in price of pepper means that the growers are no better off than if they had not switched. So which one of these phrases gives a reason why this would be a wrong conclusion?

A) may be true but we can’t see evidence of it in the rest of the passage.
B) if this were true then it would actually strengthen the claim of “some people” which the author believes is wrong.
C) This might work. If the supplies weren’t low then the price wouldn’t have climbed to coke levels. If they hadn’t switched they might be worse off because the price would be lower and they wouldn’t be selling high priced coke.
D) out of scope of the passage. Scope is in a matchbox in Missouri and this answer is with Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
E) while this is probably true it doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the text. If E is true then how are the farmers any worse off than if they didn’t switch? If I’m wrong the answer is E but my guess is C.
_________________

Conclusion: Pepper growers who switched to cocoa did not yield a substantial profit by doing so and therefore it would have been a better choice to continue with pepper. what weakens this statement?

(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go - Irrelevant
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial - Irrelevant
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops - If some of them had not switched, the price of pepper would have remained the same.
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops - Irrelevant
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously - Incorrect

Hence C

C is correct because -
(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go - talks about uncertainty factor, which can affect either ways. Luck based factors/reasons are generally not be considered
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial -- Article has no mention about costs. Irrelevant
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops - main cause - supply low so demand/price high, cause for low supply because of the switch from one crop to another (plus weather of course) - so this is the right choice
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops - No information so irrelevant
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously - this in fact is the opposite answer and a weakener

CONCLUSION of some observers :The switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched.
PREMISE: Price of pepper has increased because of shortage in supply.
Reason for supply shortage: Partly because of bad weather
partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa

The conclusion is unwarranted because, if the growers had not switched from pepper to cocoa, one of the reasons for supply shortage would not contribute. Hence, the price increase may not be as higher as it is now. This is clearly stated in option C

Reason for elimination of other options:
a) Irrelevant. Whether they are able to foresee is not going to weaken the conclusion.
b)Out of scope. Initial cost is not discussed in the passage
d) Irrelevant. We are not concerned whether cocoa is affected by bad weather as pepper crops. Irrespective of this factor, the price of cocoa is high and price of pepper is soaring
e)This is not going to affect the conclusion. The conclusion is about rise in price of pepper and has nothing to do with fall in price of cocoa. Even if this statement is negated, it will not affect the conclusion.

I got the correct answer but was not able to get what question is, I got that from your post, Thanks for providing such nice explanation.

Could someone help to breakdown this question? I had chosen B as the answer.

Hi,

Consider it as a weakener question and then try to solve it. let me know if you are still not able to solve it.

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
I know the question looks clumsy,So lets breakdown

Researchers conclusion: some researchers concluded that switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa is no better than not switching..
Authors conclusion: researchers conclusion is baseless.

nowhere it was mentioned in the passage that the growers switched just because of price.So we cannot assume something that is not mentioned in the argument.Eliminate A.

This is irrelevant.Okay. What if cocoa profits are so high that the initial cost is negligible? or we don't know how the profits will be(profits...or losses). Other than that the costs are not mentioned in the passage.

this is true. As there many have switched to cocoa.the supplies of pepper fall down and demand has grown because of which prices were increased.Keep this.

this supports researchers conclusion. we need to prove that researchers conclusion is unwarranted.so eliminate it.

we don't talk about cocoa supplies and cocoa prices.It's supporting researchers conclusion.
Eliminate it.
Answer is C

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
I know the question looks clumsy,So lets breakdown

Researchers conclusion: some researchers concluded that switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa is no better than not switching..
Authors conclusion: researchers conclusion is baseless.

nowhere it was mentioned in the passage that the growers switched just because of price.So we cannot assume something that is not mentioned in the argument.Eliminate A.

This is irrelevant.Okay. What if cocoa profits are so high that the initial cost is negligible? or we don't know how the profits will be(profits...or losses). Other than that the costs are not mentioned in the passage.

this is true. As there many have switched to cocoa.the supplies of pepper fall down and demand has grown because of which prices were increased.Keep this.

this supports researchers conclusion. we need to prove that researchers conclusion is unwarranted.so eliminate it.

we don't talk about cocoa supplies and cocoa prices.It's supporting researchers conclusion.
Eliminate it.
Answer is C

The argument says that the , raise in pepper has ultimately become no use for the farmers who has changed to cocoa.
To weaken the argument we must see for the option which directly or indirectly says , farmers would have not earned profits if they have not converted.

A. the statement repeats what happened in the argument, the farmers did not foreseen the scenario.
B. The initial cost of switching doest say how the farmers have been profited by changing.
C. Correct, this option says if the farmers continued the scenario of increasing price would not happen at all, so who changed has gained profit in those three years at least.
D. It is against the conclusion given above. if crop is susceptible then its no use in converting
E. This statement also goes against the conclusion , if its true , it says changing has made no good to the farmers .

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
-the key here what the author says at the end: “this conclusion, however, is UNWARRANTED because it can be inferred to be likely that” so we are looking for an explanation/reason why the conclusion: “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” is not a good one

-Even if the growers did not have the foresight, that’s not a valid reason for us to deem the conclusion as unwarranted

(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial

-We can’t infer anything about the initial cost involved…there’s no such information available about that.

(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops

Correct. We learned from the argument that pepper price dropped for 2 reasons: weather and reduced supply. To say that the growers would be no better off implies that the growers didn’t have to switch and we would still see a price hike. BUT, the price hike wouldn’t have happened if the growers didn’t cut the supply to begin with.

(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops

Nothing mentioned about susceptibility of cocoa crops to bad weather (or even pepper crops for that matter…we just know in general that pepper crops are affected by weather)

(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously

Not enough info.
_________________