求教天山9-2

wisdomyilin

Q：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.
请解释下E是怎么削弱结论的。

clarry

做习惯了LSAT觉得GMAT的题还真绕。结论非常隐晦。看了好一会 想明白了，开始选了C 嘿嘿：一开始读漏了一个很关键的条件，世界价格。 想了半天为什么要强调这个，原来时这样的： 结论1. 作者假设世界腰果价格是一定的，那么，虽然利润减少了，但是该国的市场份额却使得该国的整个生产量增加了。所以更多的农民受益了。 结论2：如果不加税，国内的加工业失业就问题严重了。（意在说明政府增税的这一举措可以同时控制失业率）
E答案：农民因利润的减少而纷纷离开农村去了城市，那么增加了失业率，跟政府的意图相反。跟结论相反。

A：无关
B：反正是以世界价格出售，所以不影响
C：无关
D：无关