Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 07:49 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 07:49
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [2]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 25 Oct 2021, 21:42
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DinoPen
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

For
(B) Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
...
doesn't this answer choice depend on the assumption that the government's purchasing of wheat is fixed? Else, despite the world's prices decreasing, the government will always pay 1$ less? Thus, this will strengthen the argument?

Isn't this assumption a stretch? Or am I missing something here?
Show more

DinoPen - We don't need to get into "what if" situations. We are given that sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat. It doesn't say anything about what the Govt will do thereafter. So for our purpose we assume that status quo is maintained. We are not given that the Govt price is pegged to the world price and moves with it.
So option (B) does weaken the argument.

Yes, the Govt could reduce its own buying price too but if it does, we need to be given that. That will then weaken the weakener.
User avatar
Vegita
User avatar
Joined: 23 May 2020
Last visit: 08 Sep 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
12
Given Kudos: 1,528
Posts: 86
Kudos: 12
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 03 Jan 2022, 21:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

Quote:
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.
Show more

It seems like the correct option weakens only a part of the main conclusion which is getting an extra dollar. How does it weaken the rest of the part which says "..minus any transportation and brokerage"?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [1]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 03 Jan 2022, 22:40
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vegita
KarishmaB

Quote:
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

It seems like the correct option weakens only a part of the main conclusion which is getting an extra dollar. How does it weaken the rest of the part which says "..minus any transportation and brokerage"?
Show more

Vegita

To weaken a conclusion, we do not need to say that everything it says is false. Even if we establish that one aspect may not be true, it is enough to weaken it.

Take a simpler example:
Conclusion: A and B will visit the mall today.

Statement: B has a project delivery today and will be in office till 12 midnight.

This statement weakens our conclusion. The conclusions says A and B will visit. The statement says that B is unlikely to visit. So it weakens our conclusion even if it doesn't say anything about A.


The conclusion is that they will get

$1 - Extra Expenses (transportation and brokerage)

more.

What is this conclusion based on? That world market buys at a price higher than Govt by $1. So by selling outside, farmer will get that $1 extra (minus extra expenses of selling to the world market).

How do we weaken it? By showing that farmers may not get ($1 - expenses ) extra when they sell to the world market. If selling outside to world market will depress the prices (say by $0.5), farmers will not get ($1 - expenses ) extra. They will get say ($0.5 - expenses ) extra etc. It will depend on how much the prices are depressed but the extra earning may not be ($1 - expenses ). The conclusion is weakened.
User avatar
Poojita
User avatar
Joined: 30 Dec 2019
Last visit: 02 Oct 2022
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
82
Given Kudos: 654
Location: India
Schools: LBS MFA "23
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: LBS MFA "23
Posts: 70
Kudos: 82
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 30 Apr 2022, 14:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

Irrelevant. We are only discussing two diff sale prices.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Again irrelevant. Where they will sell in the world market doesn't matter. Perhaps the transportation cost will be 0.01$ per bushel, we don't know. Even if the transportation cost is very high, realise that it is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will get ($1 - transportation) extra. Even if this becomes negative, the conclusion still holds. The transportation cost is a variable and could take any value without changing the conclusion. The problem is with $1. If that changes, then the conclusion will not hold. Option (B) clearly says that the extra margin of $1 may not be available if these farmers tried to sell outside. So it weakens our conclusion.

E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

Again, cost of production is irrelevant. We are taking about what the govt pays them for wheat and what they can get outside in the world market. The argument clearly says that the Govt pays them a dollar less than what they would get outside. Those are the two prices we need to compare.

Answer (B)
Show more

I want clarification on one thing. The following statement: government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market
If the price in the world market would depress as stated in option B, suppose it's $7, then according to the statement I have re-written and underlined above, govt will pay to farmers $6. So the farmers are still earning a dollar per bushel more than they would have earned if they sold their crops to govt. How is option B correct that way?
KarishmaB Skywalker18 GMATNinja egmat
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [2]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 01 May 2022, 23:32
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Poojita
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

Irrelevant. We are only discussing two diff sale prices.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Again irrelevant. Where they will sell in the world market doesn't matter. Perhaps the transportation cost will be 0.01$ per bushel, we don't know. Even if the transportation cost is very high, realise that it is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will get ($1 - transportation) extra. Even if this becomes negative, the conclusion still holds. The transportation cost is a variable and could take any value without changing the conclusion. The problem is with $1. If that changes, then the conclusion will not hold. Option (B) clearly says that the extra margin of $1 may not be available if these farmers tried to sell outside. So it weakens our conclusion.

E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

Again, cost of production is irrelevant. We are taking about what the govt pays them for wheat and what they can get outside in the world market. The argument clearly says that the Govt pays them a dollar less than what they would get outside. Those are the two prices we need to compare.

Answer (B)

I want clarification on one thing. The following statement: government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market
If the price in the world market would depress as stated in option B, suppose it's $7, then according to the statement I have re-written and underlined above, govt will pay to farmers $6. So the farmers are still earning a dollar per bushel more than they would have earned if they sold their crops to govt. How is option B correct that way?
KarishmaB Skywalker18 GMATNinja egmat
Show more


Poojita
We are not given that Govt. price is pegged to the world price. Currently, the Govt is giving $1 less than the world price. If the world price reduces, the Govt is not required to reduce its own price too. It may reduce, may keep same, may increase - we know nothing about how it will react. Hence if the world price depresses, it does bring our conclusion into question - will the farmer still get ($1 - transportation) etc? We don't know.
User avatar
BLTN
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 242
Own Kudos:
255
Given Kudos: 216
Posts: 242
Kudos: 255
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 08 Nov 2022, 05:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear GMATNinja,
I have alike question and read your explanation, thanks for detailed answer.
Quote:
When Suriland’s wheat farmers move to sell on the world market, the world market will change, and the price of wheat will likely decrease. So, let’s say that the current price of wheat on the world market is $100 per bushel. Then, Suriland farmers are paid $99 per bushel. BUT when the Suriland farmers join the world market, the price of wheat drops to $80 per bushel. Now, Suriland farmers earn $80 (less any transportation costs) per bushel. So, the farmers do not actually earn more. Let’s keep (B).
Show more
But, the argument mentioned nothing about Profit. The conclusion clearly states that
Quote:
if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less....
Show more
Taking into consideration that the government pays farmers a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market, we can infer that price will always be X+1$ for Export and X-1$ for sale to Government.

Thus, whatever price is the conclusion will always hold true. In this case, how B can weaken?

Thank you in advance, Charles.­
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,886
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,886
 [1]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 05 Dec 2022, 10:28
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BLTN

Dear GMATNinja,
I have alike question and read your explanation, thanks for detailed answer.
Quote:
When Suriland’s wheat farmers move to sell on the world market, the world market will change, and the price of wheat will likely decrease. So, let’s say that the current price of wheat on the world market is $100 per bushel. Then, Suriland farmers are paid $99 per bushel. BUT when the Suriland farmers join the world market, the price of wheat drops to $80 per bushel. Now, Suriland farmers earn $80 (less any transportation costs) per bushel. So, the farmers do not actually earn more. Let’s keep (B).
But, the argument mentioned nothing about Profit. The conclusion clearly states that
Quote:
if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less....
Taking into consideration that the government pays farmers a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market, we can infer that price will always be X+1$ for Export and X-1$ for sale to Government.

Thus, whatever price is the conclusion will always hold true. In this case, how B can weaken?

Thank you in advance, Charles.
Show more
Hi BLTN,

I would love to try and help with this one! @GMATNinja’s explanation for option B is spot on. Hopefully, this explanation will help provide some clarity on the underlying nuances.

Here is my understanding of what is really going on!

The current situation

Suriland’s wheat farmers are forced to sell their crop to the government at a price that is $1 per bushel less than the price of wheat on the world market.

For example:
World market price of wheat = $100
Price at which the farmers sell their wheat to the government = $99 (Current selling price!)

The conclusion
Quote:
“Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.”
Show more
Our conclusion here is dealing with a hypothetical situation.

If – the farmers could in fact sell their wheat on the world market (instead of being forced to sell to the government),

then – they would make a dollar per bushel more, not including additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Now, focus on the bolded portion above. It is important to visualize this carefully. Here are some important questions to ask -

1. Are we talking about selling price per bushel or profit per bushel?

The author is talking about what the farmers will make excluding the additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

“Less additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.” - is a clue.

The author would not be discussing about removing a cost component when talking about selling price. This would typically only come up when dealing with profit (revenue – costs).

2. “They would make a dollar per bushel more”. Great. But more as compared to what exactly?

This is a very important point. The author is clearly suggesting that compared to what the farmers make in the current real situation, they would actually make a dollar per bushel more in the hypothetical situation described in the conclusion.

Let’s visualize this situation using numbers.




The conclusion is that if, instead of selling to the government, the farmers could sell to the international market, then they would make one dollar per bushel more ($40 - $39) compared to what they are actually making in real life. This is not including those additional costs.

I suspect that you understood the conclusion to mean that the price will be one dollar more compared to the price the government will offer (given that the government is offering a price that is $1 less than the world market price, whatever the market price is, it will be $1 more than what the government is offering).

I hope that you see now the actual comparison at play in the conclusion!

If this is clear, then it’s easy to see why option B works.
Quote:
Option B: Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
Show more
If the world market price goes down from its current level, then, it really casts doubt on the conclusion that the farmers would have made $1 more per bushel than what they are getting currently.

For example:



Currently, the farmers are making $39 per bushel from the government. Choice B tells us that if they sold their wheat on the World Market, instead of making $40 a bushel, they could end up making less than $40. This is what option B indicates – it is a valid weakener.

Hope this helps!
Harsha­
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
 [2]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 09 Dec 2022, 17:04
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BLTN

Dear GMATNinja,
I have alike question and read your explanation, thanks for detailed answer.
Quote:
When Suriland’s wheat farmers move to sell on the world market, the world market will change, and the price of wheat will likely decrease. So, let’s say that the current price of wheat on the world market is $100 per bushel. Then, Suriland farmers are paid $99 per bushel. BUT when the Suriland farmers join the world market, the price of wheat drops to $80 per bushel. Now, Suriland farmers earn $80 (less any transportation costs) per bushel. So, the farmers do not actually earn more. Let’s keep (B).
But, the argument mentioned nothing about Profit. The conclusion clearly states that
Quote:
if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less....
Taking into consideration that the government pays farmers a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market, we can infer that price will always be X+1$ for Export and X-1$ for sale to Government.

Thus, whatever price is the conclusion will always hold true. In this case, how B can weaken?

Thank you in advance, Charles.
Show more
To address your concern, let's take a look at the exact conclusion:
Quote:
Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.
Show more
What does the argument mean by "a dollar per bushel more?" Does it mean a dollar per bushel more than they currently make? Or does it mean it mean a dollar per bushel more than they would get if they sold to the government?

Well, let's consider the implications of the second interpretation. If that were the correct interpretation, then the argument would basically be impossible to weaken. In fact, it wouldn't really be an argument so much as a restatement of the original facts.

Put another way: if the government pays a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market, then selling to world market would always pay one dollar per bushel more than selling to the government. That's a circular statement, not a conclusion. And for that reason, it makes more sense to assume the argument means to say the farmers would earn one dollar more than they currently make if they sold on the world market.

In that case, if the world price dropped, farmers wouldn't make a dollar more than they currently make. As per our example above, they might make $80 per bushel instead of $99. Since that would weaken the argument, (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!­
User avatar
TBT
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 26 Nov 2023
Posts: 308
Own Kudos:
469
Given Kudos: 494
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
Posts: 308
Kudos: 469
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 17 Jan 2023, 23:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
"less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay" does this mean that these costs are already accounted for and will no longer play a part?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 24 Jan 2023, 16:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TBT
"less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay" does this mean that these costs are already accounted for and will no longer play a part?
Show more
It means that if the farms sell their wheat on the world market, they'd make a $1 more pre-bushel, before taking into account those additional costs. Because it's this pre-cost gap we care about, the costs aren't important when evaluating the argument, even if they haven't been factored in yet.

I hope that clears things up!
User avatar
Stanindaw
User avatar
Joined: 11 Dec 2020
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 129
Own Kudos:
55
Given Kudos: 73
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Economics
Schools: Booth '26 Fuqua '27
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q80 V80 DI77
GPA: 3.7
Products:
My Reviews Forum Quiz
Schools: Booth '26 Fuqua '27
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q80 V80 DI77
Posts: 129
Kudos: 55
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 31 Jan 2023, 00:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

Irrelevant. We are only discussing two diff sale prices.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Again irrelevant. Where they will sell in the world market doesn't matter. Perhaps the transportation cost will be 0.01$ per bushel, we don't know. Even if the transportation cost is very high, realise that it is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will get ($1 - transportation) extra. Even if this becomes negative, the conclusion still holds. The transportation cost is a variable and could take any value without changing the conclusion. The problem is with $1. If that changes, then the conclusion will not hold. Option (B) clearly says that the extra margin of $1 may not be available if these farmers tried to sell outside. So it weakens our conclusion.

E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

Again, cost of production is irrelevant. We are taking about what the govt pays them for wheat and what they can get outside in the world market. The argument clearly says that the Govt pays them a dollar less than what they would get outside. Those are the two prices we need to compare.

Answer (B)
Show more

Hi Karishma,
I have a doubt in B:
Even if the price in world market went down because of sale of Suriland’s crop ($22 to $20) how can we assume that Suriland’s government will not decrease the price ($21 to $19)

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [2]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 31 Jan 2023, 04:12
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Stanindaw
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

Irrelevant. We are only discussing two diff sale prices.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Again irrelevant. Where they will sell in the world market doesn't matter. Perhaps the transportation cost will be 0.01$ per bushel, we don't know. Even if the transportation cost is very high, realise that it is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will get ($1 - transportation) extra. Even if this becomes negative, the conclusion still holds. The transportation cost is a variable and could take any value without changing the conclusion. The problem is with $1. If that changes, then the conclusion will not hold. Option (B) clearly says that the extra margin of $1 may not be available if these farmers tried to sell outside. So it weakens our conclusion.

E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

Again, cost of production is irrelevant. We are taking about what the govt pays them for wheat and what they can get outside in the world market. The argument clearly says that the Govt pays them a dollar less than what they would get outside. Those are the two prices we need to compare.

Answer (B)

Hi Karishma,
I have a doubt in B:
Even if the price in world market went down because of sale of Suriland’s crop ($22 to $20) how can we assume that Suriland’s government will not decrease the price ($21 to $19)

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Let me ask you the flip question - how can we assume that the Govt will decrease the price? We are not given that the Govt sets its pricing as per world pricing. Until and unless we are given that 2 things are connected, we shouldn't worry that they may be. When we are asked to evaluate the impact of a particular change, it is assumed that everything else stays the same.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 05 Feb 2023, 20:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
Stanindaw

Hi Karishma,
I have a doubt in B:
Even if the price in world market went down because of sale of Suriland’s crop ($22 to $20) how can we assume that Suriland’s government will not decrease the price ($21 to $19)

Posted from my mobile device

Let me ask you the flip question - how can we assume that the Govt will decrease the price? We are not given that the Govt sets its pricing as per world pricing. Until and unless we are given that 2 things are connected, we shouldn't worry that they may be. When we are asked to evaluate the impact of a particular change, it is assumed that everything else stays the same.
Show more

Hi KarishmaB – If i could gently push back - we are given the yellow

The premise states

Quote:
“Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market”
Show more

The premise in the purple implies that if world prices drop (say from 22 $ to 15 $) – the govt prices will also drop accordingly (21 $ to now 14 $), no ?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,994
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,994
 [1]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 06 Feb 2023, 22:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
KarishmaB
Stanindaw

Hi Karishma,
I have a doubt in B:
Even if the price in world market went down because of sale of Suriland’s crop ($22 to $20) how can we assume that Suriland’s government will not decrease the price ($21 to $19)

Posted from my mobile device

Let me ask you the flip question - how can we assume that the Govt will decrease the price? We are not given that the Govt sets its pricing as per world pricing. Until and unless we are given that 2 things are connected, we shouldn't worry that they may be. When we are asked to evaluate the impact of a particular change, it is assumed that everything else stays the same.

Hi KarishmaB – If i could gently push back - we are given the yellow

The premise states

Quote:
“Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market”

The premise in the purple implies that if world prices drop (say from 22 $ to 15 $) – the govt prices will also drop accordingly (21 $ to now 14 $), no ?
Show more

No, what you suggest is not implied. Let's read again:

Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market.

Suriland produces just enough wheat for itself. It cannot do both - export as well as support itself.
Hence, the farmers are required to sell to their own govt only.
But their own govt is paying them a dollar less than the price on the world market.

It doesn't not imply that Govt is setting its prices as per the world market. Just that currently the govt is paying a dollar less than the world market.
User avatar
manasp35
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 23 Jun 2024
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
70
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 30
Kudos: 70
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 17 Feb 2024, 02:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB

gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.


C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

 
Show more
­What if, transportation and brokerage costs amount to $1.1 per bushel ? Won't they be making less if they export. 
User avatar
AGK_21
User avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2023
Last visit: 27 Oct 2025
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 04 Mar 2024, 06:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mathisxy
I don'r understand why B is correct. It says that the government will pay for the wheat at a price of 1 dollar cheaper per bushel than the price on the world market. Let's say if the price on the world market is 5 dollars per bushel, so the price of the government is 4 dollars per bushel. According the option B, the price on the world market will decrease, so maybe it decreases to 4 dollars per bushel 1 year later, and since the price of the government is 1 dollar cheaper, it should be 3 dollars per bushel then. So there will ALWAYS be a difference of 1 dollar per bushel on the price, no matter the world price increases or decreases. Therefore, I don't think option B is correct. You may argue that it is not indicated clearly that the govrenment price will ALWAYS be 1 dollar cheaper than the price on the world market, but it is not clearly said that the government price will stay FIXED all the time, either. It just said Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. This is ambiguous.

This may be a flaw of this problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Show more
­
I have the exact same doubt, can someone please help with this? ­
User avatar
manasp35
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 23 Jun 2024
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
70
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 30
Kudos: 70
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 04 Mar 2024, 10:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AboliK

Mathisxy
I don'r understand why B is correct. It says that the government will pay for the wheat at a price of 1 dollar cheaper per bushel than the price on the world market. Let's say if the price on the world market is 5 dollars per bushel, so the price of the government is 4 dollars per bushel. According the option B, the price on the world market will decrease, so maybe it decreases to 4 dollars per bushel 1 year later, and since the price of the government is 1 dollar cheaper, it should be 3 dollars per bushel then. So there will ALWAYS be a difference of 1 dollar per bushel on the price, no matter the world price increases or decreases. Therefore, I don't think option B is correct. You may argue that it is not indicated clearly that the govrenment price will ALWAYS be 1 dollar cheaper than the price on the world market, but it is not clearly said that the government price will stay FIXED all the time, either. It just said Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. This is ambiguous.

This may be a flaw of this problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
­
I have the exact same doubt, can someone please help with this? ­
Show more
­@AboliK because once you decide to export, you won't be able to keep it affordable in Suriland. (as per first statement of argument). Also if you read second statement, it is given as present case scenario that govt. pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. (present case scenario). Third statement is dealing with hypothetical case scenario.

option B
if farmers export => supply increases => world market price drops => this will not lead govt price to drop 

Please let me know if you agree ?
User avatar
craghav1985
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2022
Last visit: 11 Jun 2024
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 9
Location: India
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 06 Apr 2024, 12:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
gmatt1476
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01


Farmers are paid 1$ less for wheat by Govt than world market price.

Conclusion: If they sold wheat outside, they will get 1$ more per bushel (minus any transportation and brokerage).

It is a conditional conclusion. We need to say what will happen if these farmers sold outside. We need to find a reason that says that if these farmers sell outside, they may NOT get (1$ - transportation etc) extra.

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

Irrelevant. We are only discussing two diff sale prices.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

Correct. If these farmers sold outside, price of wheat will go down. Then they may not get 1$ extra.

C. The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

Doesn't matter. How much actual extra money they will make is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will make (1$ - transportation etc) extra. Whether it amounts to $0.9 or $0.0001, it is irrelevant.

D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Again irrelevant. Where they will sell in the world market doesn't matter. Perhaps the transportation cost will be 0.01$ per bushel, we don't know. Even if the transportation cost is very high, realise that it is irrelevant. The conclusion only says that they will get ($1 - transportation) extra. Even if this becomes negative, the conclusion still holds. The transportation cost is a variable and could take any value without changing the conclusion. The problem is with $1. If that changes, then the conclusion will not hold. Option (B) clearly says that the extra margin of $1 may not be available if these farmers tried to sell outside. So it weakens our conclusion.

E. The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

Again, cost of production is irrelevant. We are taking about what the govt pays them for wheat and what they can get outside in the world market. The argument clearly says that the Govt pays them a dollar less than what they would get outside. Those are the two prices we need to compare.

Answer (B)
Show more

But question says the famers would get $1 less than the world market price, meaning if they sold outside and price reduces then the government will pay $1 less than the new world market price. Why have we assumed that the government is paying $1 less only at current rate? Where I am coming from it appears the $1 difference will remain, irrespective of world market price.

Please help

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
manasp35
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 23 Jun 2024
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
70
 [1]
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 30
Kudos: 70
 [1]
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 06 Apr 2024, 20:41
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
craghav1985

Quote:

Quote:
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.
But question says the famers would get $1 less than the world market price, meaning if they sold outside and price reduces then the government will pay $1 less than the new world market price. Why have we assumed that the government is paying $1 less only at current rate? Where I am coming from it appears the $1 difference will remain, irrespective of world market price.

Please help

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
­@craghav1985 Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. If farmers sell wheat worldwide (exporting) , Suriland won't be able to keep bread affordable. The government won't be able to pay a dollar less in this case. 
User avatar
Ophelia__
User avatar
Joined: 22 Dec 2023
Last visit: 27 Oct 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 52
Posts: 21
Kudos: 9
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda 18 Apr 2024, 12:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
Quote:

gmatt1476Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland. Accordingly, Suriland's wheat farmers are required to sell their crop to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. Therefore, if the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.
(B) Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.
(C) The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.
(D) Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.
(E) The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.


CR45650.01
Show more
­
The conclusion is that if the farmers coud sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay. 

This is based on the important premise given that the farmer is currently required to sell to the government, which pays them a dollar per bushel less than the prce on the world market. 

I tend to think better if i express it mathematically:
Given: Government price - price on the world market = $1 
Result of the plan to selling on the world market: Net Profit = $1 - (tranportation and brokerage) costs

Author is assuming that there is no other factors that will render the conclusion invalid, and that the net profit for implementing the plan will be $1- costs no matter what. 

By weakening the argument, we need to find an option that cast some doubt on this assumption, that somehow maybe the net profit would not be $1-cost. Anything along this line in any subtle way should catch our attention. 

(A) Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.

That could be true indeed. But even if production costs are higher for farmers in Suriland, how would that impact their profit should they choose to sell on the world market. After all, we are looking for something that attack net profit will be $1 - costs if implementing the plan and this option provides no help. 

(B) Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.

This raise an interesting point because if more supply of wheat on the world market results in a lower price of wheat, then we might not be earning as much as $1. Let's assume some smart numbers for easy illustrations. For example, if the price on the world market is $10 per bushel and the govenment price is $9 per bushel (as we are told in the passage that govenment pays a dollar less), farmers decided to sell the wheat corp on the world market at $10 per bushel, however, as more and more wheat corp was listed for sale, supply goes up which depresses the price of wheat on the market to $9.5 per bushel let's say. Then farmers' net profit will be $0.5 (the difference between the price they sold on the world market vs. what the governemnt offered them) - cost. Then we can clearly see this one weaken the argument by attacking the assumption that they will earn $1-cost as net profit. 

(C) The transportation and brokerage costs that Suriland's farmers would face if they sold their wheat outside Suriland could amount to almost a dollar per bushel.

yeah, but we will still be earning $1 -cost, aren't we? irrespective of what cost might be. 

(D) Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat.

Doesn't matter, as long as some or even one country import wheat from suriland, we are earning $1-cost as planned. The argument isn't attacked. 

(E) The price of a bushel of wheat on the world market occasionally drops below the average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland.

I think this one is similiar to A. We don't care about the average cost of producing wheat. We only care that if the resulting net profit will be $1 - transportation and brokerage cost. The fact is even if the price of the wheat on the world market drops below average cost of producing a bushel of wheat in Suriland, we are still getting the $1 (difference between GOVERNMENT offer which is pegged to world price per given and world price) - cost.  


 
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts