What you are saying, in effect, is that workers who move to the city will be unemployed. Isn't that too much of an assumption as per GMAT standards?
Could you explain it a little more clearly?
Thank You
nope, definitely not too much of an assumption. two solid reasons why not.
first, there has to be some baseline assumption here -- i.e., we must make a judgment as to which of the following alternatives is more reasonable: 1 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO NOT have prearranged jobs VS 2 * it's more likely that the displaced farmers moving into the city DO have prearranged jobs i think you'll agree that the first of these assumptions is much more reasonable than the second.
also, note what we're trying to do in this problem: we are trying to WEAKEN the argument. if any non-negligible fraction of the farmers lack jobs in the city, then the government plan will help to reduce city unemployment, by keeping these farmers on their land (and thus out of the city). therefore, if there is a positive effect on reducing unemployment, that's exactly the opposite of what the argument claims -- so the argument is weakened. in fact, the only way this choice doesn't weaken the argument is if you assume that ALL of the farmers have jobs waiting for them in the city. that would be the unreasonable assumption here.
最重要的问题没有指出！If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashew were sold at world market prices, more farmers could ....中的lifted是取消的意思，不是提高！！！注意，关键点在这里！！！
摘自manhattan
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.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-7-27 17:45:55
