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

It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 11:48

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Re: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Nov 2017, 14:36
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
madGMAT wrote:
Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when Darfir Republic's currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir's manufactured products a bargain on the world markets, and Darfir's exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following if true provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt the politican's recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?
a) Several of the politicians no recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.
b) After several decades of operating well below its peak capcity, darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels
c) the economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country's currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
d) those countries whose manufactured products compete with darfir's on the world market currently all have stable currencies
e) a sharp improvement in the efficiency of darfir's manufacturing plants would make darfir's products a bargain on the world markets even without weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.

Can someone explain???


It is a 'weaken the plan' question.

What is the plan?
Plan: When currency weakens, exports increase. (Foreigners can buy more using same amount of their currencies so they buy more.) Therefore, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Focus on the highlighted words. The aim is to cause a similarly sized increase in exports. That is what the plan is trying to achieve. On weaken questions, we focus on the conclusion. What the plan is trying to achieve is parallel to conclusion. So we focus on trying to weaken what the plan is trying to achieve. We need to find something that tells us why we will not get a similarly sized increase in exports even if we weaken pundra.

Options a, c, d and e do not talk about the reasons we will not see similarly sized increase in exports.
Option B tells us that darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels. If this is true, exports cannot increase much because darfir cannot manufacture more than it is manufacturing now. If there are no extra products manufactured, there cannot be extra exports. In previous instances, darfir was manufacturing below capacity so they could manufacture extra products. Hence the plan worked in those instances but this time it may not. Therefore, option (B) is correct.



Hi VeritasPrepKarishma,

I understand that the plan as stated in the argument was to weaken the pundra in order to increase exports. B says that even though you weaken the currency, you may still not achieve an increase in exports. However, how do we identify this is exactly what is to be weakened ? How I saw it initially was that the argument is stating that an increase in exports will be achieved by weakening the pundra. So, we find some other alternate thing that could increase the exports (other than the currency weakening), we can probably weaken our conclusion. E provides an alternate reason ?

Can you shed some light on this and explain how do you exactly understand here that is what is to be weakened ?
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1016
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2017, 16:26
Poorvasha

Quote:
I understand that the plan as stated in the argument was to weaken the pundra in order to increase exports. B says that even though you weaken the currency, you may still not achieve an increase in exports. However, how do we identify this is exactly what is to be weakened ?


Focus on the goal of the plan,which is we need to cause similar sized exports in future as in past.

Quote:
How I saw it initially was that the argument is stating that an increase in exports will be achieved by weakening the pundra. So, we find some other alternate thing that could increase the exports (other than the currency weakening), we can probably weaken our conclusion. E provides an alternate reason ?


I think subtle difference you missed is that goal of the plan is about future, as indicated by SHOULD.
Whenever a cause and effect relationship takes place in past, alternate cause is correct weakener.
We know here that there was an unique cause that led to effect.

But when a causal effect is shown in present tense / future, will alternate cause be the correct weakener. Think about it.

No, since we do not know if the said cause was the only one that lead to the effect, Right?

You might help below explanation helpful too:

X will lead to Y (X: Weak pundra, Y: similarly sized increase in exports) So, this argument is talking about a future case that X will lead to Y. Remember, in this argument, Y has not occurred in the past and the argument is not trying to explain the reasons for
its occurrence. The argument is making a futuristic statement that X will lead to Y.
The option statement for this argument says that:
A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants would make Darfir's product a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies
The statement presents an alternate route, Z, to reach the same end Y ( Z: A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir's manufacturing plants, Y: similar sized increase in exports). Here again, just
the presence of one more way to reach the end does not weaken the argument that X will lead to Y.
The argument does not say that only X will lead to Y. If there are other ways to reach Y, it does not
impact the argument.

Hope this helps!
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Re: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods   [#permalink] 13 Nov 2017, 16:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 42 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.