Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed

[sahilk47]

Ron

Pertaining to option (A) here: Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

I interpreted this option as saying:

Processing cashews -- > Certain by-products --> Unaffected industry --> removal of tariff wont affect urban unemployment because processing industry has these other industries where one could find employment.

Thus, weakened.

Please guide where am I going wrong.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

there are at least three serious flaws in that reasoning.

1/
the issue deals exclusively with URBAN unemployment.
how do you know that these other industries are in urban environments?
you don't. that is made up completely at random.

2/
how do you know that these other industries will have job openings?
you don't. that, too, is made up completely at random (and is in fact much more likely NOT to be true—see #3 below).

3/
the characterization of 'unaffected industry' is almost certainly wrong.
if the tariff is lifted, there will be less domestic processing of cashews. (this is the entire basis of the argument in the passage.)
according to choice A, these other industries use the waste products of cashew processing as raw materials.
so, if the tariff is lifted, there will be LESS raw material for these industries. if anything, these industries too will suffer from reduced throughput—probably creating even MORE unemployment (if reduced throughput means layoffs, as it usually does).

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi Expert:
I still cannot understand why C is incorrect after reading this thread, pls help.

My reasoning:
After lifting the tariff——more profit in farming,less profit in processing ——the excessive people who ever worked in processing plant will redirect to farming——this will solve or relieve the unemployment problem in urban area——weaken the conclusion"removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government’s effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years."

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

okay, whoa, 2 big problems there.

1/
that choice says "more people work in farming than in cashew processing."

from this, you're somehow getting the idea that jobs must be available in farming.
there is no reason to think this.

2/
moreover...

the excessive people who ever worked in processing plant will redirect to farming

remember that these problems are about the real world.

when people in cities lose their jobs, do they move out to the country and become farmers?
no.

[heathcliffluo]

This is a very difficult question, but you might arrive at E in two ways:

1) by process of ellimination
2) by noticing the change in the argument at the word "however" and noting this in your diagram somehow

A reduced diagram:

K: (up) tariff cashew exports ---> sold to domestic plants
If no tariff ----> more farmers get $
BUT plants in cities, so no tariff ----> hurt gov effort to (down) unemployment
(AKA we need the plants to stay open)

Notice that we must weaken the conclusion, which is the cause and effect relationship in bold above. At this point, notice that the conclusion is immediately following the word "BUT." So, strengthen the preceding idea, and as a result you can weaken the C.

E is right because it shows us that without good crops to grow for profit, poor farmers will move to the city. Well, the tariff, if removed, would allow those poor farmers to make money growing cashews. As a result, they wouldn't need to move to the city to find work. Hence, the unemployment rates in the city would not go up because of these new workers. Everything in this argument is tied together. It is essential that you see important words like "however" and the relationships that these words create among various parts of the argument.

A tough one, but a good one.

Dear,

I don't get where we can get the point "If no tariff ----> more farmers get $", as in the passage, it indicates that "If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. "

Doesn't this sentence tell us that "if tariff were lifted ----> more farmers get $"?

[RonPurewal]

"lifted" means "removed".

so, "tariff lifted" and "no tariff" are the same.

[JohannaH678]

first off i want to say I saw this problem on Ron's video and his videos on strengthen/weaken are indispensable. i went through the "leading" CR book and i never got even close to doing the strengthen weaken problems as well as i can now (and all I did was watch the first segment of his video about formal thinking vs intuition)

in any case, my question is about answer choice D. I see this as a an assumption that the argument relies on (so in this case a strengthener). what are the experts thoughts?

I care because if this were a assumption question, answer choice D could be the answer and i'd consider it very hard to figure out.

D) Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices

using intuition, competitive prices suggests economic viability and that solidifies that these processors make money and therefore should keep people working (employed)

Hi there,

Interested in checking out the video referenced here. I looked through the ones before April 2012, do you think this one -March 3, 2011:
strengthen/weaken and evaluate the argument problems- is what they were talking about? or is there a better one for CR Strengthen/Weaken?

Thanks,
JH

[RonPurewal]

johannaH678, you're responding to a post that is almost 5 years old... i'm sure that user is no longer active on the forum.

in any case, the post to which you're responding is timestamped April 2012... so, the poster is talking about one of the recordings from before that date. (:
(i don't keep any further details, beyond what's listed on the archive page.)

you should get just as much positive value from watching any of the "strengthen/weaken" videos -- the points made in them should be similar.

[Bhaskar1013]

My two cents, the answer seems to be E.

The author seems to feel that reducing the tariff will not help in reducing urban unemployment, we need to weaken that.

Pre thinking: Something that helps to increase urban employment will be our answer.

More people are coming to the cities ( urban areas ) for employment because growing crops is not profitable anymore .

This will certainly help to increase urban employment.

This is option E says and hence is our weakener.

[RonPurewal]

^^ do you have a question? if so, please post a specific question.

if you don't have a specific question, please do not post "solutions" to the problems.
the correct answer is given in the original post -- as per the forum rules -- so there's also no sense in saying that some choice "seems to be" correct.