Recent moves to lower the tariff on Spring lamb imported

Question

Recent moves to lower the tariff on Spring lamb imported into the United States have met with protests from sheep ranchers in the United States. These ranchers complain that the United States' market would be flooded with cheap frozen Spring lamb imported from Argentina and New Zealand, and that they would be forced out of business.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the United States sheep ranchers' position?

A. Many economists believe that tariffs actually damage the industry which they are intended to protect.
B. There is a subtle difference in the tastes of frozen Spring lamb and fresh Spring lamb.
C. Sales of Spring lamb within the United States have been falling for many years as consumers look for lighter, less fatty meat.
D. The quality of Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is as high as any in the world.
E. Almost all of the Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is exported.

GyanOne · Accepted Answer

The OA should be (E).

(A): Even if economists believe so, there is no clear evidence to link this to the ranchers' position. Incorrect.
(B): There is no evidence for the difference in tastes does not translate into a definite advantage in the market. Incorrect.
(C): The move of allowing the import of Spring lamb has no relation to how the market is currently doing. What we need to compare is how the ranchers will do if the import is allowed v/s how they will do if it is disallowed. No evidence on this. Incorrect.
(D): Even if the quality of domestically produced Spring lamb and the imported variety is the same, the import could still hurt the ranchers economically and cause them to lose out. Incorrect.
(E): CORRECT. If most of the Spring lamb being produced by ranchers in the United States is anyway exported, then the import will not hurt the ranchers as the import affects the United States market, but the ranchers' produce is sold in foreign markets.

crick20002002 · Answer

+1 for E.

Agree with the explanation provided.

Crick

atnt444 · Answer

I would go with E . Import of cheap frozen lamp will not affect the business of sheep ranchers if all of the Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is exported !!!

nishtil · Answer

I completely agrees with the explaination provided. IMO E, OA Please?

LalaB · Answer

yes, I also think, that E is the correct answ

bschool83 · Answer

Many economists believe that tariffs actually damage the industry which they are intended to protect. OUT OF SCOPE
There is a subtle difference in the tastes of frozen Spring lamb and fresh Spring lamb. OUT OF SCOPE
Sales of Spring lamb within the United States have been falling for many years as consumers look for lighter, less fatty meat. OUT OF SCOPE
The quality of Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is as high as any in the world. IRRELEVANT
Almost all of the Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is exported CORRECT

metallicafan · Answer

+1 E

If the American meat is exported, it won't compete with the meat from Argentina in the US.

avi84 · Answer

+1 for E, but option C for me is strengthening the conclusion and is not out of scope...

karthikp1211 · Answer

I go with C
C -ranchers' position would not be affected if c were true.
E actually states that the raunchers have no effect of the tariff change.

Maverick5656 · Answer

+1 for E !!
If the whole sheep lamb produced in United States is exported then whatever happens with in United states does not affect the Ranchers 
So E says it all

OptimusPrimea1 · Answer

Yeah E straight..

A) This is sort of a strengthener,restating that tariffs(low or high) will actually affect the business.
B) Out of scope.
C) Again out of scope. Comparison needs to be provided between foreign lamb and local lamb.
D) Strengthener if anything. If quality is same and foreign lamb being cheaper than rancher's lamb,demand for local lamb will certainly go low.

ruplun · Answer

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the United States sheep ranchers' position? --DOES this question mean weakening ? on the sheep rancher's position?

BangOn · Answer

Yes. The sheep ranchers' position is opposition to import. We need to put that position in danger.
E does that. If everything is exported by US sheep ranchers' domestic demand will put their position in danger.

GMATBusters · Answer

daagh Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the United States sheep ranchers' position? The question can be interpreted in 2 ways:

i) damaging to the United States sheep ranchers' position- means that US ranchers are thrown out of business. ii) damaging to the United States sheep ranchers' position- The US rancher's complain that they would be forced out of business would be weakened. How to understand the question.

daagh · Answer

gmatbusters

What would weaken the ranchers' position? Position refers to the claim that ranchers would out of business. 
However, the fact according to E is that they are not catering to the domestic market. They are only exporting. 
Therefore the exports volume will not shrink. Thus, their claim is weakened.

abhishekmayank · Answer

Although, learners and experts seem to be in unison for the choice 'E', let me express my apprehension about E :

E. Almost all of the Spring lamb produced by ranchers in the United States is exported.

Whether it is not possible that imported lamb into the country will be exported further. If the imported lamb is cheaper then its further export will give better profit, rather than procuring domestic lamb and exporting them. In that case, the option E is not a weakener, but strengthener.

Experts, your opinion on that

daagh 
 MentorTutoring 
 VeritasKarishma

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  abhishekmayank . Although the scenario you outlined could prove true, it is a step removed from the linear logic of the passage. It is logical to assume that ranchers would oppose decreased taxes on imports of a competing product within the domestic market. The passage states as much:  ranchers complain that the United States' market would be flooded  with cheaper lamb than what they have to offer. There is no information in the passage that suggests an importing/exporting scheme ( Art Vandelay , anybody?), since the language itself points in a single direction:

-  imported into the United States

-  the United States' market  (i.e. not the world market)

-  imported from  (not  to  other countries)

Whenever you find yourself bending over backwards to justify a could-be-true line of thought, you have probably overworked the problem and need to pursue a simpler line of logic instead. Given this set of five answer choices, the  most damaging  information must be what is presented in (E). It appears as if the ranchers have been withholding information while making a case against the lowered tariffs.

I hope that helps. Thank you for tagging me.

- Andrew

KarishmaB · Answer

It is logical to assume that a country will export what it produces. It can import raw material and export finished goods but importing A and exporting same A for a higher price is illogical. Look, will you buy cheap Argentinian lamb at a high price from US? Why wouldn't you buy it directly from Argentina? This is how trade works everywhere in the world.

abhishekmayank · Answer

Thanks  AndrewN  and  VeritasKarishma  for the clarification !!

Recent moves to lower the tariff on Spring lamb imported

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

Recent moves to lower the tariff on Spring lamb imported

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