BLTN wrote:
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.
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.
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!