Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign go...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper: Krenland's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland's steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial's argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Krenland's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. |
|
| But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland's steel industry. |
|
| Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument follows a classic problem-consequence-solution pattern. It starts by identifying the problem (lost sales due to cheap imports), explains the consequence (job losses), and then proposes a solution (government action to reduce imports).
Main Conclusion:
The Krenlandian government should take measures to reduce cheap steel imports to protect both steel companies and industrial employment.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses a causal chain: cheap imports cause lost sales, which will cause job losses, therefore government intervention to reduce imports will prevent these job losses. The logic assumes that reducing imports will directly solve the employment problem.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce belief in the conclusion that government measures to reduce cheap steel imports would protect both steel companies and industrial employment in Krenland
Precision of Claims
The conclusion specifically claims that reducing cheap steel imports would protect 'not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland' - so we need to focus on how import reduction might fail to protect jobs or companies, or might even harm overall employment
Strategy
Look for scenarios where reducing cheap steel imports might backfire or have unintended consequences. Focus on: (1) How other industries might be hurt by more expensive steel, (2) How steel-using companies might react to higher steel costs, (3) How the overall employment picture might be different from just steel jobs
This tells us that Krenlandian steel isn't competitive internationally and gets little revenue from exports. However, this doesn't weaken the argument at all. The editorial is focused on protecting domestic sales and employment by reducing imports - whether or not Krenland exports steel is irrelevant to this domestic policy recommendation. This choice is essentially beside the point.
This reveals that there are no penalties for violating international treaties that ban steel subsidies. While this explains why foreign governments continue subsidizing, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that Krenland should reduce cheap imports to protect jobs. If anything, it might strengthen the case for unilateral action since international enforcement isn't working. This doesn't challenge the core logic.
This is the correct answer because it reveals a devastating unintended consequence. If many Krenlandian manufacturers face severe international competition and rely heavily on steel as a raw material cost, then making steel more expensive (by reducing cheap imports) could seriously hurt these companies. They might lose competitiveness, reduce production, or even go out of business - potentially causing far more job losses than would be saved in the steel industry. This directly contradicts the editorial's claim that the policy would protect 'industrial employment in Krenland.'
This explains that shipping costs for foreign steel have fallen due to logistical advances. While this provides another reason why foreign steel is cheaper, it doesn't weaken the argument's conclusion. Whether imports are cheap due to subsidies, lower shipping costs, or other factors, the editorial's solution of reducing imports could still theoretically work. This just adds context without challenging the logic.
This notes wage differences between Krenlandian steel workers and foreign steel workers. However, wage differences alone don't weaken the argument - they're just another factor in competitiveness. The editorial could still be correct that reducing imports would protect domestic steel jobs, regardless of wage disparities. This doesn't challenge whether the proposed policy would work.