United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods

Question

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the politician's argument?

United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods shipped to Mexico doubled in the year after tariffs on trade between the two countries were reduced, it does not follow that the reduction in tariffs caused the sales of United States goods to companies and consumers in Mexico to double that year, because __________.

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods

(B) most of the increase in goods shipped by United States companies to Mexico was in parts shipped to the companies’ newly relocated subsidiaries for assembly and subsequent shipment back to the United States

(C) marketing goods to a previously unavailable group of consumers is most successful when advertising specifically targets those consumers, but developing such advertising often takes longer than a year

(D) the amount of Mexican goods shipped to the United States remained the same as it had been before the tariff reductions

(E) there was no significant change in the employment rate in either of the countries that year

ID: 500230

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Before considering the answer choices, let’s take a look at the structure of the politician’s argument:

Tariffs on trade between the US and Mexico were reduced. 
 Goods  shipped  from the US to Mexico doubled the next year. 
 BUT, this does not mean that goods  sold  from the US to Mexico doubled as a result of the reduction in tariffs.

The question then asks that we find an answer choice that logically completes the politician’s argument. In other words, why does the politician conclude that the increase in goods SHIPPED from the US to Mexico is not indicative of a equivalent increase in goods SOLD from the US to Mexico? With that in mind, let’s take a look at the answer choices:

(A) merely indicates that many US companies have long-time competitors in Mexico. It doesn’t give any information as to whether these US companies were engaged in trade with Mexico. It’s also possible that other US companies did not have competitors in Mexico. Moreover, (A) gives no information as to how the dynamics between the competitors changed as the result of the reduction in tariffs. It’s likely that the reduction in tariffs would make US companies more competitive and thus, if anything,  increase  their sales. Therefore, (A) does not provide support for the politician’s conclusion, and we can eliminate it.

The amount of US goods shipped to Mexico doubled in the year after tariff reduction. But if most of this increase was the result of US companies shipping to their own subsidiaries, which, in turn, shipped back to the US, then most of the goods were not SOLD to companies and consumers in Mexico. Rather, they were SHIPPED to US companies in Mexico, and the US companies then shipped the goods back to the US. In other words, most of the goods SHIPPED to Mexico were NOT actually ever SOLD in Mexico. This would explain why, despite appearances to the contrary, sales of US goods to companies and consumers in Mexico did not double in that year. Let’s keep (B).

Presumably, the reduction in tariffs allows companies to market goods to previously unavailable customers. (C) tells us that these efforts are MOST successful when advertising has been in place for at least a year. But that does not mean that the marketing efforts could NOT be somewhat successful and result in double the goods sold. Moreover, there are other possible avenues to increase sales. For example, it’s possible that the companies increased their sales to existing customers in Mexico. So, (C) does not give sufficient reason to conclude that sales of US goods to Mexico did not double in that particular year. Eliminate (C).

Even if the amount of goods shipped from Mexico to the US remained constant, we still know that the amount of goods shipped from the US to Mexico doubled. We’re concerned with whether that means that sales of US goods to Mexico also doubled. And (D) gives us no reason to doubt that. Eliminate (D).

Many factors other than trade affect the employment rate. So, we can draw no conclusions about trade from the employment rate in both countries. Eliminate (E).

(B) helps to explain why we cannot conclude that the sales of US goods to companies and consumers in Mexico doubled that year, and it is correct.

I hope that helps!

pikolo2510 · Answer

Argument : -
1. Increase in shipments from USA to Mexico due to reduced tariffs
2. but increase in shipments doesn't mean increase in sales of USA-produced-goods in mexico

What do we need to find out?
We need to find out a reason that gives a reason to support #2 in the argument

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods --->  It can cause an increase in sales if the price of the USA-produced-goods is cheaper than that of mexico-produced goods or vice versa. we don't have info regarding prices. Incomplete info.  OUT

(B) most of the increase in goods shipped by United States companies to Mexico was in parts shipped to the companies’ newly relocated subsidiaries for assembly and subsequent shipment back to the United States --->  This option provides a strong reason to say that companies shipped more goods to their own subsidiaries only to be shipped back to the USA. Hence, the goods are not meant for sales in Mexico and therefore will not cause in sales in MEXICO.  CORRECT

(C) marketing goods to a previously unavailable group of consumers is most successful when advertising specifically targets those consumers, but developing such advertising often takes longer than a year --->  clearly IRRELEVANT.  OUT

(D) the amount of Mexican goods shipped to the United States remained the same as it had been before the tariff reductions --->  We are concerned about the reverse. Also, this option doesn't provide any reason to say why sales will not increase in Mexico.  OUT

(E) there was no significant change in the employment rate in either of the countries that year --->  this option doesn't provide any reason to say why sales will not increase in Mexico. IRRELEVANT.  OUT

Akash720 · Answer

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the politician's argument?

United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods shipped to Mexico doubled in the year after tariffs on trade between the two countries were reduced, it does not follow that the reduction in tariffs caused the sales of United States goods to companies and consumers in Mexico to double that year, because __________.

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods
- Opposite

(B) most of the increase in goods shipped by United States companies to Mexico was in parts shipped to the companies’ newly relocated subsidiaries for assembly and subsequent shipment back to the United States
- Correct (This explains the alternate reason - Shipping goods doesn't necessarily mean increase in sales but shipping them to the companies newly relocated subsidiaries)

(C) marketing goods to a previously unavailable group of consumers is most successful when advertising specifically targets those consumers, but developing such advertising often takes longer than a year
- Irrelevant

(D) the amount of Mexican goods shipped to the United States remained the same as it had been before the tariff reductions
- Irrelevant

(E) there was no significant change in the employment rate in either of the countries that year
- Irrelevant

redskull1 · Answer

I can also see why people have gone for B(this could very well be the right answer here on second thought).  chetan2u  is this question ambiguous.Have sales in Mexico gone up or not.?Can you please help

chetan2u · Answer

Hi  redskull1 , Ans should be B..
Reason for each choice as given below

Flow of argument..
Amount of goods shipped to Mexico doubled in the year after tariffs were lowered.
However does not mean that it resulted in double the sales of good..

Catch here is CHANGE in Shipping of goods TO sales of goods..

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the politician's argument?

United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods shipped to Mexico doubled in the year after tariffs on trade between the two countries were reduced, it does not follow that the reduction in tariffs caused the sales of United States goods to companies and consumers in Mexico to double that year, because __________.

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods
Not relevant
 
(B) most of the increase in goods shipped by United States companies to Mexico was in parts shipped to the companies’ newly relocated subsidiaries for assembly and subsequent shipment back to the United States

This gives us the quantum of stores shipped but not resulting in sales..
Correct

(C) marketing goods to a previously unavailable group of consumers is most successful when advertising specifically targets those consumers, but developing such advertising often takes longer than a year
Too many uncertainties..
Unavailable group?? People would buy because the rates have gone down and not necessarily wait for advertising
 
(D) the amount of Mexican goods shipped to the United States remained the same as it had been before the tariff reductions
 Irrelevant

(E) there was no significant change in the employment rate in either of the countries that year
Out of context

B

Tanchat · Answer

What I understand is that "the reduction in tariffs didn't cause the sales of US goods to companies and consumers in Mexico". So, It cam be because of other reasons or other, such as Marketing/Advertising. Why is (C) wrong?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

As per option (C), such advertising "is most successful when advertising specifically targets those consumers, but developing such advertising often  takes longer than a year ". But the politician is talking about doubling of sales to Mexico in " the year after  tariffs on trade between the two countries were reduced". In this period, it is likely that such advertising would not have been developed (since it takes >1 year) and hence the increase could not have been due to advertising.

Hope this helps.

jabhatta2 · Answer

OA solution

Sneha2021 · Answer

KarishmaB   GMATNinja 
Why A is incorrect?

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods
If many US companies had competitors in Mexico, then consumer might prefer Mexican goods instead of US goods and they will buy goods from Mexican companies . This statement does explain why sales of US goods didn't double that year.

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument says that more goods were SHIPPED to Mexico but that doesn't mean that more goods were BOUGHT by Mexican people and companies. 
Why?

How can you explain an increase in shipping but not sale?

(A) many of the United States companies that produced goods that year had competitors based in Mexico that had long produced the same kind of goods
Why would the shipping increase then? Why would US companies ship more goods to Mexico if people were not buying from them - it doesn't explain.

(B) most of the increase in goods shipped by United States companies to Mexico was in parts shipped to the companies’ newly relocated subsidiaries for assembly and subsequent shipment back to the United States
This tells us that US companies shipped more products to Mexico because they were shipping them to their own subsidiaries for assembly and these goods were eventually shipped back to US. 
This explain increase in shipping even though Mexicans were not buying more US products.

That is why (A) is incorrect and (B) is correct.

jabhatta2 · Answer

AnishPassi   IanStewart   AjiteshArun   avigutman

What exactly is the argument ?

Is the argument

I personally thought the argument was (#1) and not (#2)

(C) then becomes the answer.

because (C) gives us an alternative reason (not  Tariffs  but  Advertising ) was the reason why US exports have doubled to  Mexicans companies  and  Mexican consumers

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2  I think the problem is that you're playing fast and loose with the word "exports".
The premise says that the amount of goods  shipped  doubled following the reduction of tariffs. Goods shipped is not the same as exports.
The claim is about whether the reduction in tariffs caused the  sales  of goods to double. "sales of goods" is not the same as "amount of goods shipped."

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi avigutman – thank you so much for your response. I agree. I will AVOID USING the word exports completely as I think the word Exports is not accurate in this situation. This statement confused me unfortunately

Is the author really differentiating between the green and the yellow ? Is the green - revenues whereas the yellow - number of good sold ?

avigutman · Answer

No, green is not revenues,  jabhatta2 . Just because something is shipped doesn't mean its sold or generates revenues. When I moved from NYC to Toronto I had all my stuff shipped, for example.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - thank you so much for your prompt response.

Hmm clearly my understanding of the argument was flawed.

If I understand, what you saying is, the argument is the following:

goods shipped  ARE NOT THE SAME AS   goods sold

In that case -- yes – (B) is the OA

But I didn’t think that was the argument.

Reason – the red.

How were you so sure, to not pay attention to the red ?

A sentence like the red IS KEY information and it seems like the red is being completely ignored as part of the 'essential meaning' of the argument.

avigutman · Answer

It's just a way to make the argument more complex,  jabhatta2 .
The tariff reduction is (possibly) the reason for the doubling of the amount shipped. But, even if that's the case, it doesn't necessarily mean that the tariff reduction would lead to a doubling of the sales of goods.

So, if A=tariff reduction, B=doubling the amount shipped, and C=doubling the sales of goods:

Although B happened in the year after A happened  , it does not follow that A caused C. 
Why? Because B and C are different things.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - thank you.

I agree with your argument structure above.

The yellow highlighted bit would have been the ideal answer.

But that's not what the OA (Option B) does

The OA ( option B ) isn't actually saying the yellow highlighted bit whatsoever.  
   Option B  is just reiterating that :   is not causing   because   is happening almost  by companies organically    = tariff reduction]  
  I personally think there is a bit of an assumption going when you select  Option B . 
  What if companies are doing the  blue  BECAUSE of  lower tariffs  to begin with.  
 If you select (B) - you are making YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION that companies are not doing  blue  BECAUSE OF THE LOWER TARRIFS

I get that you pick the  best  amongst the  worst  -- but I think there is a UNASSUMED ASSUMPTION (that the  blue  is not happening because of  Lower Tariffs ) when you selection (option B) - personally.

jabhatta2 · Answer

^^^ avigutman In fact, if there was an option F (Option F) --- and are different terms I think (Option F) > (Option B) , which does have a slight assumption My opinion only

avigutman · Answer

What do you think of this answer choice,  jabhatta2 :
(G) most of the increase in goods shipped was in goods that were being transported within the same company rather than sold, and therefore were unaffected by tariffs.

Posted from my mobile device

United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

United States politician: Although the amount of United States goods

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards