The country of Boralia is among the world's largest exporters of timber. Fearing that excessive logging is accelerating deforestation, the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

The country of Boralia is among the world's largest exporters of timber. Fearing that excessive logging is accelerating deforestation, the Boralian government plans to limit timber exports to three-quarters of current volume. But Boralia cannot lose a quarter of its revenues from timber exports without experiencing a large increase in unemployment throughout the economy. Therefore, imposing the planned export limit will render the job retraining that the government will provide for former loggers pointless.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Thanks to effective, long-standing reforestation programs, other countries that export timber are under no pressure to curtail their timber harvests.

The major Boralian timber companies are planning to make larger quantities of finished wood products than they used to.

A reduction of Boralian timber exports by as much as a quarter would cause world market prices for timber to rise sharply.

The only job categories in which employment in Boralia is growing are newly emerging categories for which no standardized training is feasible.

The unemployment rate among Boralians who have never been employed in logging operations is currently the lowest it has been in decades.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The country of Boralia is among the world's largest exporters of timber.	What it says: Boralia exports a lot of timber globally What it does: Sets up the context about Boralia's timber industry What it is: Background information
Fearing that excessive logging is accelerating deforestation, the Boralian government plans to limit timber exports to three-quarters of current volume.	What it says: Government wants to cut timber exports by 25% to prevent deforestation What it does: Introduces the government's planned policy response to environmental concerns What it is: Government policy proposal Visualization: Current exports: 100 units → Planned exports: 75 units (25% reduction)
But Boralia cannot lose a quarter of its revenues from timber exports without experiencing a large increase in unemployment throughout the economy.	What it says: Cutting 25% of timber revenue will cause major unemployment across the country What it does: Presents a serious economic consequence that directly opposes the government's plan What it is: Economic prediction/warning Visualization: 25% revenue loss → Major unemployment increase across entire economy
Therefore, imposing the planned export limit will render the job retraining that the government will provide for former loggers pointless.	What it says: The export limits will make government job retraining programs useless What it does: Draws a conclusion that connects widespread unemployment to the futility of retraining programs What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with Boralia's major role in timber exports, then presents the government's plan to reduce exports for environmental reasons. It counters this plan by warning that the revenue loss will cause widespread unemployment, and concludes that this broader economic damage makes job retraining programs meaningless.

Main Conclusion:

The planned timber export limits will make the government's job retraining programs for former loggers pointless.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses a chain of economic consequences: export reduction → revenue loss → economy-wide unemployment → retraining becomes useless. The logic is that if unemployment spreads beyond just loggers to the entire economy, then retraining programs specifically for loggers won't help in a job market where no jobs are available anywhere.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that job retraining for former loggers will be pointless because of widespread unemployment from the export limits.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes specific quantitative claims (25% reduction in exports and revenues) and connects this to qualitative outcomes (large unemployment increase, pointless retraining). We need to focus on why retraining becomes specifically pointless in this scenario.

Strategy

To strengthen this argument, we need information that reinforces the connection between export limits and the futility of job retraining. We should look for scenarios that either:

Make the unemployment problem even worse or more widespread
Show that retraining programs specifically fail during economic downturns
Demonstrate that the economic impact will be so severe that retraining becomes irrelevant

Answer Choices Explained

Thanks to effective, long-standing reforestation programs, other countries that export timber are under no pressure to curtail their timber harvests.

This tells us about other countries' timber situations, but doesn't help our argument about Boralia's specific problem. Whether other countries have reforestation programs or not doesn't affect whether Boralia's job retraining will be pointless when their economy suffers from export limits. This is irrelevant to the connection between export limits and the futility of retraining programs.

The major Boralian timber companies are planning to make larger quantities of finished wood products than they used to.

This actually weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. If Boralian companies plan to make more finished wood products, this could potentially offset some job losses and provide alternative employment opportunities. This would make job retraining more useful, not pointless, contradicting our conclusion.

A reduction of Boralian timber exports by as much as a quarter would cause world market prices for timber to rise sharply.

While rising timber prices might seem helpful, this doesn't directly address why job retraining would be pointless. Higher prices could actually help Boralia maintain revenues despite lower export volumes, potentially reducing unemployment and making retraining programs more viable. This goes against our argument's direction.

The only job categories in which employment in Boralia is growing are newly emerging categories for which no standardized training is feasible.

This perfectly strengthens our argument. If the only growing job sectors are newly emerging categories where standardized training isn't feasible, then government job retraining programs become doubly pointless. Not only will widespread unemployment make jobs scarce, but even the available growth sectors can't be addressed through structured retraining programs. This reinforces why the retraining will be futile.

The unemployment rate among Boralians who have never been employed in logging operations is currently the lowest it has been in decades.

This information about unemployment rates among non-loggers doesn't directly connect to our argument about why retraining loggers will be pointless. Even if current unemployment is low among non-loggers, the argument predicts that export limits will cause economy-wide unemployment increases, affecting everyone. This choice doesn't strengthen the specific claim about retraining futility.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...