akijuneja wrote:
vani711 wrote:
Sugar quotas imposed by the federal government raise the price of sugar and all sugar-based products, whether the sugar is produced domestically or abroad. Therefore, if the president and the Senate approve the proposed treaty to lift sugar quotas, the trend of ever-increasing sugar prices will be halted.
Which of the following statements, if true, would most effectively weaken the argument above?
Sugar prices have climbed with each new round of quotas.
Sugar prices have sometimes dropped since the first set of quotas was imposed.
Sugar quotas vary from year to year according to a prearranged formula.
Sugar prices rose less rapidly in the 1980s than they did in the 1970s.
Even before the implementation of sugar quotas, the price of sugar occasionally rose.
Can you explain how E is correct here?
Hey Aki,
The question i asking us to weaken the conclusion of the question stem, I will rephrase it for you:
Concl.: The trend of rising prices (of sugar) will get halted once the quotas are lifted by the government. (Plus, we also know that it is given in the premise - "because of government quotas..prices are scaling up)
So, in order to weaken this conclusion, we need to find a choice that will give us an alternate reasoning for the rising sugar prices.
Now, choice E says that the prices had risen earlier as well, in the absence of any imposed quotas. So that's our answer - since we have weakened the conclusion that prices were rising only because of government imposed quotas, and shall stop scaling up when the quotas are lifted.
Hope that helps.