【请教】GWD-T-9-Q2

T-9-Q2     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 cashew 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 plants 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
  

E说farmers因种crops无利可图而进城，但未必就一定失业啊？？？

请各位大虾指教！！！谢谢！！！

没人理。。。

以下为我的想法,请见蓝色字

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 cashew 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.

结论句: revoming tariff -> unemployment in cities "won't be reduced" 

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
            

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

-> 此选项把范围由cities扩大到整个Kerland，的确若remove tariff，此选项可以说明Kernald的失业率可能会下降，但确无法weaken城市中的失业率不会下降这个结论 
            

E.A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities
-> A lack of profitable crop代表的就是"没有remove tariff"，没有废除关税导致Kerland那些无利可图的农民移动到城里，现在只要证明"enemployment in cities won't be reduced" 就可以达到反对因的削弱。的确，不一定那些移动到城里的农民都是失业者，但就算全部的这些农民都找到工作，顶多失业人口也只是持平，没有reduced吧?! 更何况若只要其中一个农民没有工作，更证明了失业人口不会减少。削弱原题的因果关系

一点拙见，open to discuss 

priton题目解释的很透彻

我说一下对选项的看法

C 要明确政府的目的是什么——想让城市失业率下降，C中可能农民增加失业率会超过相对的城市增加的就业率，但是人家政府不管农民，目的只是城市，只有城市就业率没上升，才是weaken

E 我觉得没必要想的太细致，所谓的suppor和weaken并不是让题目变得无懈可击，只是有着加强和削弱作用，只要农民进城有很大的可能性导致失业率上升就可以了。

个人意见，open to dicuss