The country of Sacchar can best solve its current trade deficit proble

The argument readily assumes that lowering the price of sugar, a prime export commodity, will elevate the country's position in international market and increase the sugar export. In this way country can defeat the trade deficit soon. The argument based on given reasoning seems unpersuasive and flawed.

First, trade deficit is delta of value of total import and that of total export. The argument assume that sugar is its prime export commodity and lowering the sugar price will reflect in terms of elevation of country position in international market. However, the author remains silent on % of sugar export and fail to establish price-demand trend for sugar commodity in international market. Along with this argument is nowhere mentioned that sugar is only singular commodity to reduce the trade deficit. The argument doesn't provide suffice statics related to Sacchar and other sugar exporting countries.

Additionally, the argument assumes that rise in sugar sale would decrease the trade deficit.Here, no sugar sale v/s trade deficit information mentioned in the argument.

The argument's conclusion is completely based on hollow assumption having no solid ground.The lack of figures and trend of trade deficit in context of sugar make the argument flawed and unconvincing.

Thanx guyz for a suggestion..

The argument claims that the country of Sacchar can best solve its current trade deficit problem by lowering the price of sugar, its primary export. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated and manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak/ unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the import figures will remain constant as the exports of sugar increase. This statement is a stretch as import figures can increase at the same rate that export figures are increasing. For example, if Sacchar starts exporting 50% more sugar and importing 50% more goods then the overall trade deficit would remain same. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the import will remain stable over the course of upcoming years.

Second, the argument claims that lowering price of sugar would make Sacchar better able to compete with other sugar exporting countries. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between lowering of sugar price and a favourable position in the sugar export market. Other sugar exporting countries may also reduce their sugar prices which in turn could lead to the same level of competition as before. If the argument had provided evidence that none of the other sugar exporting countries reduced their sugar prices, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument is based on the assumption that sales would increase as a result of lowering the price of sugar. What if other countries growing sugar domestically? If that were the case, countries may not choose to buy sugar from sugar-exporting nations. Without convincing answer to this question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be considerable strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation or decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, it would be beneficial to know the trend of import as export increases, the relation between lowering of sugar price and the country’s position in the market, and whether domestic cultivation of sugar would have any effect on sugar-exporting nations. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck