With decreased production this year in many rice growing countries

Question

With decreased production this year in many rice-growing countries, prices of the grain on world markets have increased. Analysts blame this increase on the fact that only a small percentage of world production is sold commercially, with government growers controlling most of the rest, distributing it for local consumption. With so little rice being traded freely, even slight changes in production can significantly affect the amount of rice available on world markets.

Which one of the following, if true, would most call into question the analysts' explanation of the price increase?

(A) Rice-importing countries reduce purchases of rice when the price increases dramatically.
(B) In times of decreased rice production, governments store more of the rice they control and reduce their local distribution of rice.
(C) In times of decreased rice production, governments export some of the rice originally intended for local distribution to countries with free grain markets.
(D) Governments that distribute the rice crop for local consumption purchase the grain commercially in the event of production shortfalls.
(E) During reduced rice harvests, rice-importing countries import other kinds of crops, although this fails to compensate for decreased rice imports.

Source: LSAT

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

production.jpg [ 174.85 KiB | Viewed 11567 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

gmat1220 · Answer

I think A is a dramatic weakener.

gmat1220 · Answer

Govt control can forestall the fluctuations in the price. Is it B?

gmat1220 · Answer

Demand and supply met. Causing the price to fall back. Is it D?

diebeatsthegmat · Answer

i think the answer is C 
the reason explained in the text why the price of rice increased is because government growers stored all the grain to distribute to local consumption instead of selling in the world market.

C gives out another reason saying that its not because growers in the country stored it, its because government sold all the rice into another countries so the supply now decreased and this caused the price to increase.

gmat1220 · Answer

This is not realistic. I think the author of this question made a lot of bookish assumptions.

Posted from my mobile device

wiilwaal · Answer

I Believe the answer is C:
The premise of the argument is that there is little amount of rice supply for commercial purpose-for instance if 90% of worldwide rice production is controlled by growers/governments for local consumption, then analysts argue that there is not enough supply of freely traded rice.
C: States that in times of decreased rice production, government growers sale some of the rice destined for local consumption/storage at the free market-This clearly weakens the argument's conclusion.

ctkrishnan · Answer

The answer is C
The analysts blame the casue of price rise on the fact that the grains are stored for local use and little is given away for world market.

This argument can be weakened, if the grains stored for local use is given to the world market which is what option C talks about. Hence the answer!

gmatjon · Answer

The author of the argument implies that because so little rice is traded freely in world markets, the price of rice increases dramatically in world markets in times of production shortfall.

Answ C says that governments will sell some of the rice they store for local consumption in times of production shortfall. However, selling some rice in world markets governments not necessarily cause the price of rice to fall. Imagine, what each government decides to sell only 1% of the rice they store for local consumption. It would be very little increase in demand to satisfy the demand when the production of rice falls and supply is not enough to cover the demand. Thus even though C is correct it does not weaken the author's explanation of why the world prices on rice increase.

Answ D clearly weakens the explanation of the author. Author believes that because governments keep locally produced rice out of world market that is why the price of rice rises in times of production shortfall. What if the governments buy the rice commercially from world market. That would attack the author's explanation by attacking one of the premises.

To understand:

Author believes that:

Production Shortfall---->Gov-t keeps rice out of world market to distribute locally -----> the supply of rice in the world market falls-----> price of rice rises

If D is correct:

Production Shortfall----> supply of rice in world market falls-----> government buys rice commercially from the market--->demand for rice rises-----> price of rice rises

So, D clearly weakens the explanation of the author.

Zatarra · Answer

A can be a weakener if we assume that the governments anticipating a drop in demand for grain in the world markets withhold stocks of grain ,thus decreasing the grain supply to the world markets.
Can someone confirm ?

vjsharma25 · Answer

IMO A is stating after effects of the price increase. We need to weaken the why the price increased,which this options fails to do.This option states that due to price increase rice-importing countries decrease their intake. So not a weakener.

amit2k9 · Answer

Argument - As governments control most of the Rice crop for local market,a deficit in production will lead to Short fall in World Market.

Requirement - Look for an option which shows that the world market will not be effected with such a short fall in production.

A Topic scribes the World Market,not just the countries which import.Hence nullified.
B It doesn't even discuss about the world market. Hence,nullified.

C Governments participate and supply Rice crop at times of short fall. Hence, the world market may not be effected by the current short fall.

Thus C is a clear winner.

Zatarra · Answer

Agreed that A is stating after effects of the price increase.
What if 
1)the Govt Growers knew beforehand that A would hold true in case there is a price increase .
and then
2) The Govt decides to hold back stock in anticipation of reduced demand

DharLog · Answer

With decreased production this year in many rice-growing countries, prices of the grain on world markets have increased. Analysts blame this increase on the fact that only a small percentage of world production is sold commercially, with government growers controlling most of the rest, distributing it for local consumption. With so little rise beeing trade freely, even slight changes in production can significantly affect the amount of rice avaiable on world markets.

What we have:
Production of rice in this year in rise-countries decreased, prices increased.
What does analysis say:
1. Small percentage of world production is sold freely (commercially).
2. Governments of rise-coutries control most of the rest - distribute them locally.
3. So small amounts are sold freely, other are controled ---> so even slight decrease in production significantly affects amount of rice

Now, if we can find in options weakening of 1, 2, 3 (really 3 is a conclusion of 1 and 2, so we have to consider only 1 and 2).

A. Rice-importing countries reduce purchases of rice when the price increases dramatically.
 It is logical action, but out of a scope. It does not affect 1-2-3.

B. In times of decreased rise production governments store more of the rise they control and reduce local consumption.
 It is logical action, but as in A it does not affect 1-2-3.

C. In times of decreased rise production governments exports some of the rice originally intended for local distribution to countries with free grain markets.
 That is good. It affects in some way 1-2-3. The governents reduce local amount and increase word amount for free markets.

D. Governments that distribute the rice crop for local consumption purchase the grain commercially in the events of shortfalls.
 Not affects 1-2-3. And more. It is even may be a strengthening argument.
If everything is ok with crop, Government stores X for local and exports Y to world market.
If we have a short fall, Government stores X2 for local, exports Nothing to world market, and even buys Z addtionally ---> so it will be even smaller ammount of rise.
But evenif we overthink, the sentence in the1st row says all wee need

E. During reduced rise harvests, rice-importing countries import other kinds of crops, although it fails to compensate for decreased rice imports.
  Irrelevant does not affect 1-2-3 .

PSKhore · Answer

Based on the information provided, the analysts' explanation for the increase in rice prices is that the small percentage of world rice production sold commercially, coupled with government control over most of the rest, makes the market highly susceptible to even slight changes in production.
To determine which option would most challenge this explanation, consider how each option affects the market dynamics described by the analysts:

A) This option, while possibly affecting the quantity of rice traded, does not directly undermine the analysts' core point about the limited free-market supply and the resulting price sensitivity. It describes a typical market reaction to price increases, which aligns with the analysts' explanation.

B) This option supports the analysts' explanation. By reducing local distribution, governments would be further restricting the supply of rice available to commercial markets, thus exacerbating the price increase due to the production shortfall.

C) This option directly challenges the analysts' explanation. If governments are diverting rice intended for local distribution to commercial markets during production shortfalls, it would increase the supply of rice available on those markets, thus mitigating the price increase. This action would counteract the analysts' claim that the limited free-market supply is the key driver of the price hike.

D) This option also supports the analysts' explanation. Governments buying on the open market during shortfalls would further reduce the already limited commercial supply, potentially driving prices even higher, just as the analysts suggest.

E) This option, like A, might influence overall food consumption and trade patterns, but it doesn't challenge the analysts' explanation about the specific dynamics of the rice market. It simply illustrates an alternative approach to addressing food shortages, not the core mechanism of price increase.

Therefore, the option that most calls into question the analysts' explanation is (C). If governments are actively increasing the commercial supply of rice during production shortfalls by diverting some of their own reserves, the analysts' argument about the limited free-market supply and extreme price sensitivity becomes less compelling.

Source: AI Overview

With decreased production this year in many rice growing countries

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

With decreased production this year in many rice growing countries

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