The united States is considering a ban on the impo

[MdAbuAsad]

The united States is considering a ban on the importation of salmon from Country B in order to protest poor protection of intellectual property rights in Country B. An economist counters that such a ban would be ineffective, since Country B would circumvent it by selling the extra salmon in Europe. Indeed, last year, six European nations each imported more salmon than Country B exported to the United States.

Which of the following, if true, would most severely weaken the economist's argument?

(A) Salmon is the chief export of Country B, accounting for a substantial proportion of its export earnings over each of the last three years.
(B) The supply of native salmon has become increasingly limited in certain parts of North America in the past decade, including many parts of the United States.
(C) Salmon from Country B is considered a delicacy in all of the European nations that imported salmon last year.
(D) The economic value to U.S. companies of the adoption of intellectual property regulations in Country B is greater than the value of salmon exports from Country B.
(E) Costs for the transportation of salmon from Country B to Europe would make salmon from Country B more expensive for European consumers than salmon imported from other countries.
The correct answer is E.
D means what?
We have to prove that the US consideration of ban on the importation of salmon from Country B will be effective.
E says: The overall cost for importing salmon in European country from country B is more than other country. So, make weaken the economist's argument, we have to prove that the European country will no longer import salmon from country B. My Question is: how do we be sure that ''not a single European'' will import salmon from country B?

Summary:
US department's challenge: not a single amount of salmon is exported to other country.
Economist's said: the US department will fail to keep its challenge. That means: B will still export its salmon to other country.
Weaken: i've to say something which goes against the Economist's saying. That means: ''not a single amount'' will be exported to other country.
In E, your are the inhabitant of England. If Italy does not import from country B, will not you import as a representative of England. Is there any indication in E that NO European will import from country B? The Italian may not have more money, but YOU (only you, the representative of England) may have more money to buy after increasing the cost of Salmon.
Thanks...,
Source: Manhattan GMAT book.

[cgentry]

The united States is considering a ban on the importation of salmon from Country B in order to protest poor protection of intellectual property rights in Country B. An economist counters that such a ban would be ineffective, since Country B would circumvent it by selling the extra salmon in Europe. Indeed, last year, six European nations each imported more salmon than Country B exported to the United States.

Which of the following, if true, would most severely weaken the economist's argument?

(A) Salmon is the chief export of Country B, accounting for a substantial proportion of its export earnings over each of the last three years.
(B) The supply of native salmon has become increasingly limited in certain parts of North America in the past decade, including many parts of the United States.
(C) Salmon from Country B is considered a delicacy in all of the European nations that imported salmon last year.
(D) The economic value to U.S. companies of the adoption of intellectual property regulations in Country B is greater than the value of salmon exports from Country B.
(E) Costs for the transportation of salmon from Country B to Europe would make salmon from Country B more expensive for European consumers than salmon imported from other countries.
The correct answer is E.
D means what?
We have to prove that the US consideration of ban on the importation of salmon from Country B will be effective.
E says: The overall cost for importing salmon in European country from country B is more than other country. So, make weaken the economist's argument, we have to prove that the European country will no longer import salmon from country B. My Question is: how do we be sure that ''not a single European'' will import salmon from country B?

Summary:
US department's challenge: not a single amount of salmon is exported to other country.
Economist's said: the US department will fail to keep its challenge. That means: B will still export its salmon to other country.
Weaken: i've to say something which goes against the Economist's saying. That means: ''not a single amount'' will be exported to other country.
In E, your are the inhabitant of England. If Italy does not import from country B, will not you import as a representative of England. Is there any indication in E that NO European will import from country B? The Italian may not have more money, but YOU (only you, the representative of England) may have more money to buy after increasing the cost of Salmon.
Thanks...,
Source: Manhattan GMAT book.

First, I wouldn't say we need to know that "not a single European nation" would import salmon...we only need a suggestion that the ban would be effective.

Notice that the argument states that 6 European countries imported more salmon; it does NOT say from what country! So they import salmon, but not necessarily from Country B. When you add in choice E, this suggests that although these 6 countries would import salmon, they would not import it from Country B--they would import it from the less expensive sources.

So now the USA is not importing salmon from Country B, and we have a reason why European countries would also not import salmon from Country B. That weakens the economist's argument.

The most important thing to remember here: a weaken question does not have to absolutely destroy the argument. It does not need to be that absolute.