Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. |
|
| If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. |
|
| However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by explaining the current tariff policy, then acknowledges a benefit of removing it (more farmer profit), but concludes this would create a bigger problem (urban unemployment)
Main Conclusion:
Removing the cashew export tariff would seriously hurt the government's efforts to reduce urban unemployment
Logical Structure:
The argument uses a 'yes, but' structure - it admits removing the tariff has benefits but argues the costs outweigh them. The key link is that processing plants in cities would lose business if cashews are exported instead of processed domestically
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that removing the tariff would seriously hamper efforts to reduce urban unemployment
Precision of Claims:
The argument makes specific claims about quantity (more farmers profiting), location (all processing plants in urban areas), and timing (next five years for unemployment reduction)
Strategy:
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that show removing the tariff might not actually hurt urban employment as much as predicted. We should look for ways that urban areas could still maintain employment even if cashews get exported instead of processed domestically, or ways that removing the tariff could actually help urban employment.
'Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.' This information about what happens to cashew processing by-products doesn't address the core issue of whether removing the tariff would hurt urban employment. Even if by-products are useful, this doesn't change the fact that fewer cashews would be processed domestically if the tariff is removed, so it doesn't weaken the argument.
'Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.' This actually could strengthen rather than weaken the argument. If other countries subsidize their processing, it suggests that Kernland's processing plants might face even more competitive pressure if the tariff is removed, potentially making the urban unemployment problem worse.
'More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.' While this suggests more farmers would benefit from higher prices, it doesn't weaken the conclusion about urban unemployment. The argument acknowledges that farmers would benefit, but maintains that urban unemployment (where processing occurs) would still be harmed. This doesn't address whether the urban employment impact would actually be as serious as claimed.
'Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.' This actually supports keeping the tariff rather than weakening the argument for doing so. It provides an additional reason why the processing plants benefit from the current system, which would strengthen the concern about what happens if the tariff is removed.
'A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.' This severely weakens the argument by showing that the current tariff system is actually contributing to urban unemployment rather than helping reduce it. If farmers can't make profitable livings (partly because they're forced to sell below world market prices), they abandon farming and move to cities looking for work. Removing the tariff would make farming more profitable, potentially keeping farmers on their land and reducing the flow of unemployed people into urban areas. This directly contradicts the argument's conclusion that removing the tariff would hamper urban unemployment reduction efforts.