It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 16:53

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


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

V07-19

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 64

Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.9
Reviews Badge
Re: V07-19 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Mar 2017, 10:15
Bunuel wrote:
Official Solution:

Ten years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Bangladesh’s currency, the taka, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world’s most stable currencies. Both times a weak taka made Bangladesh’s manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Bangladesh’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 taka to become weak again. Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians’ recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

A. Several of the politicians now recommending that the taka 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 peak capacity, Bangladesh’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 Bangladesh’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
E. A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Bangladesh’s manufacturing plants would make Bangladesh’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the taka relative to other currencies.


(A) Is irrelevant (politicians' stances / opinions don't have a direct bearing on any of the economic indicators in the argument).

(C) We cannot evaluate the effects of (c) until we know whether the purported rise in exports will be 'significant' (circular reasoning - we can't base advocacy for/against a policy on its uncertain results)

(D) Is irrelevant, as there's no material difference between this situation and the situation during the first two export booms: notice that, in those cases, the reference currencies were all stable as well

(E) Is irrelevant: the question asks us to undermine the politician's suggestion, not to suggest an alternative.


Answer: B



hey

i agree that all answer choices abde all are wrong but c is also not correct as

c in a way strengthens the claim to some extent saying that in case currency is made weak and export demand increases we can supply as much compared to previous years. please let me know if am wrong

otherwise even if we do not consider the above to be true still in no way it affects the argument by weakening it.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 64

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Re: V07-19 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2017, 13:56
sayantanc2k wrote:
sathish.never@gmail.com wrote:
"Bangladesh’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels."

Option B says the manufacturing sector is operating at near-peak levels but not at peak levels. We are assuming the effort is already maxed out. May be the difference in manufacturing effort (Peak - nearly peak) is enough to meet the export demand.

I think E was better fit until option B is rephrased.


Since the word "substantially" is used, it is alright to conclude that difference between near-peak and peak would not be able to cater to the substantial ("similarly sized") increase.

Option E is irrelevant altogether. The argument is about whether the plan to weaken taka would boost the export - the argument is not about whether some alternative plan could boost the export.


I disagree with you, this question combines both evaluation and weaken question. According to Kaplan method, one way to weaken the argument is to find another better explanation for the argument.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Apr 2017
Posts: 63

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

Re: V07-19 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2017, 13:59
I believe E is enough to weaken the argument, unless the question asks us to find out what is the flaw that weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 2

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jan 2017
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 0 [1], given: 8

CAT Tests
Re: V07-19 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2017, 14:25
1
This post received
KUDOS
True! My vote is for E.

If conclusion says X (weak currency) causes Y (increase exports), then any of the below ways would be sufficient to weaken it:

1. X not causing Y
2. Y causes X
3. Z causes Y

Option E is same as 3. We do not need to weaken taka (no need for X) because due to efficiency in manufacturing (Z), Bangladesh products would now be a better bargain on world mkts, which will increase exports (Y).

Option B is same as 1. It says "near-peak levels". Which means there isn't significant scope to increase production, which means "substantial export" (Y) may not be achieved. But this argument is not very strong.

I am not an economics expert. But taking the example that sayantanc2k gave earlier, if Bangladesh is producing 300 units for export, aren't we assuming that all 300 units are actually getting exported? If some other country is offering same product at reduced prices, then maybe Bangladesh is actually able to export only 50 units. So whether Bangladesh is able to OR not able to increase its manufacturing, it doesn't make an impact. But with a much weaker taka, Bangladesh's chances of exporting all 300 units will substantially increase. So option B is not really weakening the argument as strongly as E is.

Kudos [?]: 0 [1], given: 8

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 26

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 167

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: V07-19 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 00:17
Hi brunel
Can you please explain How B is weakening the politicians’ recommendation,??

what is the link that weakening politicians’ recommendation,?

Thanks
Abhinash

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 167

Re: V07-19   [#permalink] 22 Nov 2017, 00:17

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

V07-19

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

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.