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



Similar question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/partly-becau ... 89206.html

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

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.

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