In most cases, the price of a commodity is directly proportionate to its scarcity in the marketplace; however, there is one notable exception. Worldwide diamond production tripled between 1986 and 1996; in that time, however, the average price of a diamond increased by more than 50 percent.
Which of the following, if true, would explain the diamond’s rise in price despite its abundance?Diamond production rose a lot, so supply increased, but price still rose. The best explanation is something that keeps effective supply in the market low (or boosts demand enough) despite higher production.
(A) The price of precious gems such as sapphires and opals is at an all-time high.
This does not explain diamonds specifically. Other gems being expensive could happen for unrelated reasons, and it does not show why diamond prices rose even with higher production.
(B) The number of contractors whose sole job is the cutting and polishing of raw diamond ore has doubled.
More cutters would usually increase the flow of diamonds into the market, which would push prices down, not up. This goes the wrong way.
(C) Newly established stable governments in African nations have encouraged foreign investment and helped diamond mines flourish.
This helps explain why production increased, but it does not explain why prices increased despite that. It restates the supply increase rather than explaining the price rise.
(D) Per capita diamond consumption is much higher in North America than it is in Asia.
This is a static comparison across regions, not a change over time. It does not explain why prices rose from 1986 to 1996.
(E) A powerful cartel that controls more than 90 percent of the world’s diamonds releases them into the market depending on conditions in the world economy.
This explains it directly: even if production triples, a cartel can restrict how many diamonds actually reach the marketplace, keeping scarcity high and prices rising.
This resolves the apparent contradiction.Answer: (E)