Demand made by Scottish floriculturist: Tariffs need to be imposed on

Question

Demand made by Scottish floriculturist: Tariffs need to be imposed on less expensive flowers grown outside Scotland to maintain the price of flowers in this country; otherwise, our farms will be unable to stay in business.

Response from a Scottish florist: Scottish retailers and other businesses purchase about eighty percent of the flowers grown in Scotland. If the prices we pay are not competitive with those in Europe, our sales will drop, and then the demand for Scottish flowers will go down.

If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the florist’s argument

A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the floriculturist
B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the floriculturist
C) establishes that even the floriculturist’s business will prosper if the floriculturist’s proposal is rejected
D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the floriculturist should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the floriculturist for staying in business
E) shows that the proposal of the floriculturist would have a negative effect on the floriculturist’s own business

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

vasu1104 · Answer

floriculturist= put tariffs on less expensive flowers grown outside scotland to maintain price of flowers in the country. or our farms will be unable to stay in business.

scottish florist= local retailers buy about 80% of flowers grown in country. if the prices paid are not competitive with those in europe, our sales drop. then demand of scottish flowers will do down.

so florist is saying that majority of flowers are bought from local farms so if you are going to put tariffs on imported one adn because we are getting those flowers at competitive price as those of europeans business, then we have to raise the pirce and because of that overall sales will drop and ultimately the demand of flowers will go down. so eventually local farms will be struggling to stay alive in business.

so florist is eventually going against the floriculturist proposal by showing the effect of their proposal.

A it might be self serving but the effect of it is on both parties. so reject.
B no he/she is not trying to prove opponents proposal. reject. 
C no its actually the other way around. floriculturist business wont prosper.
D no he is giving actually the reason for the removal of plan. so out.
E perfect. as mentioned in above line, this perfectly captures the effects of floriculturist proposal and how eventually they will be digging their own graveyard. keep.

BongBideshini · Answer

A. The florist’s argument is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the floriculturist.

While the florist’s argument may be self-serving because retailers do not want to pay higher prices, it is absolutely relevant. The florist directly addresses the likely economic consequences of the floriculturist’s proposal and explains how the proposal may ultimately harm Scottish flower growers themselves.

B. The florist’s argument is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the floriculturist.
 
A circular argument assumes its own conclusion as a premise. The florist does not do that. Instead, the florist presents a clear cause-and-effect chain:
Higher flower prices → lower retail competitiveness → reduced sales → reduced demand for Scottish flowers.
That is not circular reasoning.

C. The florist’s argument establishes that even the floriculturist’s business will prosper if the floriculturist’s proposal is rejected.
 
The florist never claims that Scottish flower growers will prosper without tariffs. The florist only argues that the proposed tariff may backfire and reduce demand. Rejecting the tariff does not guarantee prosperity for growers.

D. The florist’s argument fails to give a reason why the proposal of the floriculturist should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the floriculturist for staying in business.
 
The florist clearly gives a reason against the tariff proposal. The florist argues that if prices become uncompetitive, retailers’ sales will decline, leading to lower demand for Scottish flowers. That directly challenges the effectiveness of the proposal.

E. The florist’s argument shows that the proposal of the floriculturist would have a negative effect on the floriculturist’s own business.
 
 Correct answer. 
The floriculturist proposes tariffs to protect Scottish flower farms from going out of business. However, the florist argues that higher prices caused by tariffs would reduce retailers’ competitiveness and lower flower sales. Since Scottish retailers buy about 80% of Scottish-grown flowers, lower retail sales would reduce demand for Scottish flowers themselves.
Thus, the florist argues that the floriculturist’s own proposal may end up harming the floriculturist’s business instead of saving it.
 Ans E

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

E is the best choice.

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5dhs4eP27Q

namanqqkm · Answer

can you help me explain this better
we are talking about 80% of the demand is for Scottish flowers and the price as well as demand would remain same whether or not the tariffs are imposed. 
so the whole argument is only about 20% of the flowers now, in that less expensive grown outside Scotland would be priced higher after tariff, and would be priced lower in the rest of the Europe

now people have two options pay lower price and buy the same flower outside Europe or buy scotch flower at lower price comparatively in Scotland

according to this I see the business of Scottish flower growing and hence I am unable to come to the ans or understand the conclusion.

additionally, both the arguments are talking different, one is concerned about flowers grown outside Scotland the other is talking about demand for flowers grown inside Scotland.

egmat · Answer

Hi namanqqkm,

I can see exactly where the chain breaks for you. You're treating the  80%  domestic demand as something that stays fixed no matter what, and that the tariff only touches the  20%  imported segment. That's the one assumption to drop.

Look at what the floriculturist actually wants the tariff to do.  Their words: tariffs  "to maintain the price of flowers in this country."  The whole point of the tariff isn't just to make imports pricier - it's to keep  all  flower prices in Scotland high (otherwise cheap imports would drag the price down). So the price the retailers pay does  not  stay the same; the proposal is designed to keep it high.

Now plug that into the florist's chain:

- Tariff keeps Scottish flower prices  high .
- The florist (a retailer) now pays those higher prices for the flowers they buy.
- Their words:  "If the prices we pay are not competitive with those in Europe, our sales will drop." 
- Lower retailer sales -  "the demand for Scottish flowers will go down."

Here's the link you were missing: the retailers buy  80%  of Scottish-grown flowers. So when their sales fall, the demand that collapses is mostly demand for the floriculturist's  own  flowers.

That's why the two arguments aren't talking past each other. The floriculturist says "tariffs save my farm." The florist says "those same tariffs raise my costs, kill my competitiveness, and shrink the  80%  of your demand that comes through me." The proposal  backfires on the grower  - which is exactly what  E  states.

Quick reason C is  not  it: the florist never promises growers will  prosper  without tariffs - only that the tariff would hurt them. E captures the harm precisely without overreaching.

Answer: E

chelsea10 · Answer

I dont quite understand why application of tariffs would reduce demand for scottish flowers.
My reasoning: Tarriffs imposed>>Non-scottish flowers become costly than scottish flowers>>people continue buying cheaper scottish flowers (or fly out to other countries to purchase flowers which is expensive). Retailers stays in business. Why would the sale fall at all, I dont understand ??

If the competitor (outside scot flowers) itself is eliminated (by applying tarriffs and making it expensive) then how does it impact the market competitiveness in Scottish Domestic market ?? It sure would make scottish flower less attractive in outside scottish market (international market) but in domestic scottish market how will it impact if it is priced higher ??

guddo · Answer

I think the key is that the tariff is meant to  keep Scottish flower prices high , not simply make imported flowers more expensive than Scottish ones.

If cheap foreign flowers are restricted, Scottish growers can continue charging higher prices. Scottish florists then have to pay more for flowers, and those higher costs can lead to higher retail prices. Customers may respond by buying  fewer flowers overall , not necessarily by switching to foreign flowers.

So the florist’s point is that higher Scottish flower prices can reduce retail sales. Since Scottish retailers buy about 80 percent of Scottish-grown flowers, lower retail sales would then reduce demand for Scottish flowers themselves.

That is why the tariff could end up  hurting the very growers it is supposed to protect .

egmat · Answer

Hi chelsea10,

Your chain is logical, but it rests on one hidden assumption: that Scottish flowers stay  cheap  after the tariff. That's the piece to drop.

Look at what the floriculturist actually asks for. The tariff is needed  "to maintain the price of flowers in this country"  -  this country  being Scotland. The word to zoom in on is  "maintain."  Why would Scottish farms need to  maintain  (keep up) their price? Because right now cheap imports are dragging Scottish prices  down , and the farms can't survive at that low price. The tariff's whole job is to keep  all  flower prices in Scotland high - not just to tax the imported  20% .

So your step "people keep buying cheaper Scottish flowers" is exactly where it diverges. After the tariff, Scottish flowers are  not  the cheap option anymore - they're kept high on purpose. That's the point of the proposal.

Now the florist's chain snaps into place:

- Tariff keeps Scottish flower prices  high .
- Retailers (the florists) pay those high prices for the flowers they buy.
- Their words:  "If the prices we pay are not competitive with those in Europe, our sales will drop." 
- Lower retailer sales -  "the demand for Scottish flowers will go down."

And here's the link that hurts the grower: retailers buy  80%  of Scottish-grown flowers. So the demand that collapses is mostly demand for the floriculturist's  own  flowers. The proposal meant to save the farms ends up starving them - which is exactly what  E  says.

Quick knob-turn to lock it in:  imagine the floriculturist had instead said the tariff was  "to tax imports only, while Scottish prices stay low."  Then your reasoning would win and the florist would have no case. It's the phrase  "maintain the price of flowers in this country"  that turns the whole thing against the grower.

Answer: E

Demand made by Scottish floriculturist: Tariffs need to be imposed on

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

Demand made by Scottish floriculturist: Tariffs need to be imposed on

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