Sugar quotas limiting production imposed by the federal government res

Question

Sugar quotas limiting production imposed by the federal government result in higher prices of sugar and all sugar-based products, where the sugar is produced domestically or abroad. Therefore, if the president and the senate approve the proposed treaty to remove the sugar quotas, then the trend of ever-increasing sugar prices will be halted.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most effectively weaken the argument above?

A. Sugar prices have climbed with each new round of quotas.
B. Sugar prices have sometimes dropped since the first set of quotas was imposed.
C. Sugar quotas vary from year to year according to a prearranged formula
D. Sugar prices rose less rapidly in the 1980s than they did in the 1970s.
E. Even before the implementation of sugar quotas, the price of sugar has been rising

(I Chose the right answer. My concern was the extra minute and half I took to answer. Trap Answer was : B. I understand that MOST IS 'e'. Yet it doesn;t figure into irrelevant/out of scope or ISWAT answer type ((Same wording, different context)).

Kindly help why B is a bad answer. @carcass@chetan2u

Kindly help why B is a bad answer. @carcass@chetan2u

chetan2u · Answer

Hi  ruchi857 ,

the argument talks of a scenario where the price of sugar has continously increased on imposing Quotas, and the argument says that removing quota will get the prices low..
 so we have to weaken the point - 
 Removing the quota will result in decease of prices..

why B is wrong -
B. Sugar prices have sometimes dropped since the first set of quotas was imposed.
Our Q is - Removal of Quotas will reduce price..

B would have worked as a slight weakener if the argument would have been -  Imposition of quotas has resulted in higher prices  
and B would tell us that the price actually fell sometimes after quota, so may be there are other reasons

Ekland · Answer

I have to say this.
My key to acing CR is finding out the rules to the right answer. I spent useless months trying to find out why the wrong answers are wrong. In fact I never succeeded.
I made a shift to finding out the right answers and I saw consistent patterns.
In weaken questions as this any option that suggests remotely that the cause of the problem might not be the cause is a weakener. If Sugar prices has been climbing before the quota, then there is somthing else that caused the rising price. Quota did NOT. If it didnt cause it, then why say removing it will end it?  ruchi857  got it?
Dont ask me about the other options, because they did not fall into any logic pattern I've learnt from GMAT. They are GMATically senseless

Aside: Mate i recommend the ManhattanGMAT strategy guide CR as a foundation stone for you. Dont read it, but assimilate it and let it brainwash you. Then proceed to online guys like Magoosh and Veritas. They have free questions and tutors on CR. Try NOT to jump from CR to another section until you begin to spot patterns like a detective. Improved CR will sharpen you to improve faster when you go to other sections.

_________________________________________
GMAT is about patterns discovery. Shift focus and lift.

ruchi857 · Answer

Hi!

Thanks for your reply.

I reflected on your responses and went through a quick review of my E_GMAT CR weaken module.

If I am wrong pls correct me but here is what I did learn back from that tutorial. In this question the ASSUMPTION is this that Quota started the ever increasing run of prices. There is only one premise and one conclusion and this remains the assumption. 
Now, in order to attack this conclusion - 'shatter the conclusion' or 'negate the validity of the conclusion' -- the approach is alright and the right answer is indeed right as it does ATTACK the conclusion by mentioning a different cause than Quota implementation for the increasing run of prices.

However the TRAP answer does indeed attack the conclusion (not THE PREMISE). It creates doubt that the price was 'ever increasing'.

Being so, my question is would this be a good weakening choice had no other weakener (in our case the right answer) existed ?

I am sorry if am just going run about with this question. Any insights on what I have mentioned above will be helpful.

chetan2u  tried to get the gist of what you mentioned, but taxes point went over my head.

ruchi857 · Answer

I think as per E-GMAT module, a weakener does get a NEW INFORMATION but it can attack the assumption BUT NOT the premise.

So the trap answer does indeed attack the premise that prices dropped now and then. Premise is 'increase in prices', which cannot be challenged. Hence it's a wrong answer on that count.

Thanks guys! Appreciate this discussion

chetan2u · Answer

Sorry it was a tying error.. 
it was QUOTAS and mistakenly got written as TAXES

ruchi857 · Answer

chetan2u

In that case: Imposition of higher quotas have increased the prices.

This is the premise. In light of that, I am not sure I have understood what you mentioned about TRAP answer - B could stand a chance of a weakener.

chetan2u · Answer

Hi,

The argument would be something like this in that case-

Since sugar quotas limiting production has been imposed by the federal government, the prices of sugar and all sugar-based products has increased, where the sugar is produced domestically or abroad. Clearly, imposition of quotas has resulted in higher prices.

If we have to weaken the argument and choice B comes in here-
B. Sugar prices have sometimes dropped since the first set of quotas was imposed.

So this weakens our argument that after imposition of quotas in a certain period, there was a drop in prices. This tells us that there may be some other reason that has resulted in increase of prices and now both increasing simultaneously may be merely a coincidence..

Ekland · Answer

hi  ruchi857 
You asked

"would this be a good
weakening choice had no other weakener (in our
case the right answer) existed ?"

It would not.
And more importantly GMAT is systematic and authentic.
It doesn't give you wrong questions.
If E above is not there, then the question couldn't have been GMAT.

Mind you prep guys try to mirror actual GMAT.
This question is a perfect GMAT question from Kaplan.

The answer to your question is NO.
Also I'm sure that nowhere did egmat say that weakeners attack conclusion directly.

Watch it mate, YOU MUST TAKE THE PROMPT AS TRUE.
That's a fundamental assumption.
B is telling you to jettison the stem.
That's silly.
B is no way a weakener. 
E.g. if you say America is biggest economy in the world. Therefore America is great.

I can't disprove your argument by merely yelling "That's not true! America is not great"

Posted from my mobile device

Divyadisha · Answer

Conclusion of the argument is that if quotas are removed then there will be halt in ever increasing prices.

Since we have to weaken the argument there could be few possibilities:-

1) implementation of quotas can result in increase prices but has no role in decreasing prices.
2) One a price is increased it keeps on increasing by slower or faster rate but never decreases.
3) Increasing prices led to the implementation of quotas (reversal of cause and effect)
4) Any evidence to show that quotas has nothing to do with increase in price

A. Sugar prices have climbed with each new round of quotas.  So will the quota removal lead to reduced price? no answer 
B. Sugar prices have sometimes dropped since the first set of quotas was imposed.  It says 'sometimes' prices dropped when quotas were imposed. How about when quotas were removed? no answer 
C. Sugar quotas vary from year to year according to a prearranged formula.  Ok. But we still don't know if the price will reduce after halting quotas 
D. Sugar prices rose less rapidly in the 1980s than they did in the 1970s.  We are least concerned about the years 
E. Even before the implementation of sugar quotas, the price of sugar has been rising.  It says that in the absence of quotas, sugar prices were increasing. That means there is no guarantee that sugar prices will reduce after removing quota this time.

I hope I am able to contribute a little  ruchi857

Senthil7 · Answer

B is a contender but we need to decouple the "quota' factor out of ever-rising price of sugar which would "most-weaken" the argument which is what E does.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Sugar quotas limiting production imposed by the federal government res

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

Sugar quotas limiting production imposed by the federal government res

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