一道关于Kernland remove Tariff的逻辑题目 - ChaseDream

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?

A. Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.

B. Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.

C. More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.

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

E. A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.

我是这样考虑的：原文的意思是K这个国家对出口unprocessed cashew nuts征收高关税为了引导这些产品销售到国内的processing plants，如果关税被取消（原文中的lift是“终止解除”的意思，不是“升起抬起”的意思），种植unprocessed cashew的农民们将受益，因为他们可以卖到国际价格水平（国际价格比国内价格高），但是一旦这样取消了关税，那些urban areas的失业率就会上升（因为那些processing plants在urban areas,取消关税会导致这些processing plants将以更高的国际价格购买原材料导致成本上升竞争力下降进而影响失业率）。问对结论的削弱。其实结论就是说取消关税会让失业率恶化。E其实是说关税本身的存在对失业率是有负面影响的，所以取消关税后未必会更糟（有可能会改善）。E表达的信息是因为关税的存在导致那些unprocessed cashed nuts的价格卖的低于国际水平，这些种植的农民因为关税的不利影响放弃了这种价格低利润低的产品生产，而进入到城市urban去找工作(因而增加了urban地区的劳动力供给，对urban地区的失业率有不利影响)