GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 03:30

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2019, 10:41
3
15
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (02:05) correct 49% (02:16) wrong based on 556 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________
Kudos
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 310
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 01:27
2
+1 B

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?

Argument Analysis

Here the argument says if the farmer sell in the international market , they would make a dollar more per bushel while spending less on Transportation and other beverages. Now we have to weaken the argument taking into consideration the fact that domestic sell incurs less dollars per bushel.

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

Do we care about what other countries do ? We have to be very specific to the argument which have been told to weaken.

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

Perfect , here is the reason to think that in the long term the proposed plan may not work and may incur loss.

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.

It is contradicting with the existing premises of less Transportation and Other beverages cost

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

Absolutely irrelevant

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.
Very narrow. Occasionally ? We need strong concrete Reason to weaken the argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 40
GMAT 1: 480 Q48 V14
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 02:00
1
Can anyone please explain solid reason to eliminate option "e"

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Nov 2018
Posts: 11
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 03:34
1
I too chose e as an option.
Maybe because of the word occasionally but I am not sure.

Posted from my mobile device
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2435
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2019, 11:10
1
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.

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.
Type- weaken

A. Suriland's wheat farmers have higher production costs than do farmers in many other wheat-producing countries.- incorrect, the relative cost of wheat production is not relevant
B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat. - Correct, If the farmers of Suriland start selling their wheat directly on the world market, the global supply of wheat is increase and thus prices are likely to fall (provided the demand for wheat is constant)
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.- incorrect, these costs are already considered in the conclusion
D. Suriland is surrounded by countries that do not import any wheat. - irrelevant, so it might have to sell the wheat to countries that are more distant
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.- incorrect, firstly this argument talks about occasionally. Also, this average price of production is not very relevant since we are comparing selling wheat to government vs selling in global market.

Even when the global price of a bushel of wheat is occasionally lower than the average cost of production in Suriland, then Suriland government will pay the farmers a dollar per bushel less than the price on the world market. So, our claim will still be valid in this scenario.


Answer B

rakeshtewatia0105 wrote:
Can anyone please explain solid reason to eliminate option "e"

Posted from my mobile device


mani4gupt wrote:
I too chose e as an option.
Maybe because of the word occasionally but I am not sure.

Posted from my mobile device


rakeshtewatia0105 , mani4gupt - hope this helps! :)
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Dec 2017
Posts: 88
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2019, 00:52
Logical fallacy: Correlation

Conclusion: 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.

B. Sale of a substantial proportion of Suriland's wheat crop on the world market would probably depress the price of wheat.--->B is correct because it weakens the argument by showing that the potential threat of keeping selling to the world market, which the farmers don't consider due to paying much attention to short-term profit. The argument and the answer choice reveal the effect of
short-term benefit vs possible long-term situation.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 291
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2019, 01:39
2
gmatt1476 wrote:
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


Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

To keep bread affordable in Suriland, the country's government requires that wheat farmers in the country sell their wheat to the government for one dollar per bushel less than the world market price.

This question requires us to identify a statement that seriously weakens the argument. The conclusion of the argument is that, if these wheat farmers could legally sell their wheat on the world market, they would make a dollar per bushel more, minus additional transportation and brokerage costs.

However, this argument assumes that the world market price for wheat is fixed and would not be affected by introducing Suriland's wheat supply. That is, it is possible that the world market price per bushel for wheat might decline as a result of an increase in the wheat supply available on that market. If this were the case, it would severely weaken the argument.

A. This choice is outside the scope of the argument: the argument is about Suriland's wheat farmers increasing how much money that can receive per bushel, not about how these farmers' costs compare to the costs of farmers in other countries. In any case, this claim does not indicate that Suriland's wheat farmers could make a dollar more, minus any additional transportation and brokerage costs, than they do now.

B. Correct. An increase in supply on the world market with no increased demand could easily depress the price of wheat on the market. It is still possible that Suriland's farmers would make more than they do now, even after subtracting additional transportation and brokerage costs. But the argument specifically says that the farmers would make a dollar more, minus those costs, and that does not follow if the claim made in this answer choice is true.

C. Note that the argument suggests that these farmers would make a dollar per bushel more, less any additional transportation and brokerage costs they would have to pay. That could still be true no matter what those costs are.

D. Whether Suriland's wheat is sold to near or distant countries is immaterial to the argument; note that the conclusion includes the qualification less any additional transportation costs.

E. This indicates that Suriland wheat farmers might sometimes lose money on their wheat if selling on the world market. This does not indicate, however, that they would not lose less on the world wheat market than they would selling to the government. Note that the government's price for wheat is pegged to the world market, so the price the world market offers and the price the government offers will always differ by the exact same amount: the government pays one dollar less.

The correct answer is B.
_________________
Kudos
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1327
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2019, 00:45
Conclusion - if farmers could sell wheat on world market, they would make $1/bushel more less any additional
costs (transport and brokerage)

Prem: S cannot export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable
Prem 2: S' farmers are required to sell to government at World price -$1/bushel

A - doesn't mean they can't sell at world prices
B - I got fixated on "substantial portion" as the premises sorta fixate on the idea that Surland supplies a lot to the
domestic economy (inferred), but the conclusion is actually based on a hypothetical "if farmers could..."

BUT this is one of those times where we need to take the statements to be TRUE..

B is correct because the argument actually deals with the revenue side of the equation
if S can sell on the world market they would make $1 more per bushel

B weakens the prospect that S will achieve this because if world prices are depressed below cost price then S would have been better off selling to the government at a higher
world price -$1

Example conditions:
Pre-selling on world market
Sale price per bushel (to government) = $9
World price = $10

Cost price = $5

S makes $4/bushel ($9-5)

S lists on world market--> then prices plummet
Sale price per bushel (on world market) = world market price
World price = $5.5
cost price = $5

S makes $0.5/bushel ($5.5-5)
S is far worse off now

C- We are already told that the costs are taken off after the $1 increase in price, so it doesn't matter
D - other countries, not surrounding S could import the wheat instead - its called a WORLD MARKET for a reason. Doesn't really weaken
E - occasionally could mean 1-2 times a year and for all we know the higher price throughout the rest of the year could largely offset this

Overall I found this fairly challenging as there were a few contenders
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Status: Studying 4Gmat
Joined: 02 Jan 2016
Posts: 238
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 590 Q37 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Law (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2019, 08:51
Hello Brother dcummins

B - I got fixated on "substantial portion" as the premises sorta fixate on the idea that Surland supplies a lot to the

Would like to help you here, the first sentence of stimulus states that

Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland.

This either they can sell to government or export. so the sales outside has to be all the sales or you may call it substantial sales. So there is no problem with B
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1327
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 6: 600 Q38 V35
GPA: 3
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2019, 14:36
hero_with_1000_faces wrote:
Hello Brother dcummins

B - I got fixated on "substantial portion" as the premises sorta fixate on the idea that Surland supplies a lot to the

Would like to help you here, the first sentence of stimulus states that

Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and affordable in Suriland.

This either they can sell to government or export. so the sales outside has to be all the sales or you may call it substantial sales. So there is no problem with B



Hey mate,

Sorry for the late reply - i've taken a break from the GMAT for a little.

Don't get too fixated on this sentence, just make sure you understand the meaning of it. We are told that Suriland cannot both export wheat and supply bread in the way described, so it can only do one. Its more background info than a premise. This background info allows us to understand why the farmers MUST sell the wheat to the government, there's no other choice because of the supply constraint.

You need to focus more on the conclusion, which is based on a hypothetical scenario in which the farmers could sell their wheat on the world market.

The argument is fairly flawed as it makes a number of flawed assumptions such as 1. that the world market price is above what the government pays and 2. that the price would remain that way even after the farmers in question choose to sell their stock on the world market.

A and C are incorrect for similar reasons - they point out considerations the farmers probably knew of in making their statements, but moreso we would probably need to spin some large story to substantiate how A and C would weaken the argument.

B is correct as it most adversely weakens the argument here. If famers could sell on the world market and could sell a substantial amount of their stuff, then prices would probably depress - depress = heavy fall....

D - so what, other non-surrounding countries could import the wheat.
E - occasionally could be once or twice a year... occasionally is by definition 'on occasion', so it means infrequently. This doesn't really weaken the argument.

Hope this helps.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jun 2019
Posts: 46
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Dec 2019, 16:21
LoneSurvivor wrote:
+1 B

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?

Argument Analysis

Here the argument says if the farmer sell in the international market , they would make a dollar more per bushel while spending less on Transportation and other beverages. Now we have to weaken the argument taking into consideration the fact that domestic sell incurs less dollars per bushel.

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

Do we care about what other countries do ? We have to be very specific to the argument which have been told to weaken.

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

Perfect , here is the reason to think that in the long term the proposed plan may not work and may incur loss.

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.

It is contradicting with the existing premises of less Transportation and Other beverages cost

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

Absolutely irrelevant

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.
Very narrow. Occasionally ? We need strong concrete Reason to weaken the argument.




Hi

I might be miserably wrong but option D says the country is not surrounded by Wheat Importing nations- I chose this because i thought that his clearly means they will have to transport the production to distant countries, and hence the overall effect would be negative rather than a $ saving.
Why is my reasoning wrong?

VeritasKarishma can you offer you input please?
Thanks
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9876
Location: Pune, India
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Dec 2019, 23:42
1
gmatt1476 wrote:
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)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda   [#permalink] 07 Dec 2019, 23:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Suriland cannot both export wheat and keep bread plentiful and afforda

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne