GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland&r...
Start Learning for Free
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:
Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?
- a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
- b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
- c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.
- d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.
- e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are lo...
This moderately difficult CR question presents a great example of one of the oldest tricks in the CR playbook: the “word shift” con. It is extremely common for test writers to develop a detailed and elaborate argument that then involves a subtle shift in wording or scope when moving from the premises to the conclusion.
When attacking a “weaken” question like this, you should always start by deconstructing the argument and understanding exactly the line of reasoning. To summarize this argument:
Premise One: Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower priced imports that often result from unfair practices banned by international treaties.
Premise Two: These imports are going to result in job losses in Krenland’s steel industry
Conclusion: The government should reduce cheap steel imports in order to protect not only the steel industry but also industrial employment in Krenland.
Did you notice that shift in wording and scope in bold? If you do, this problem is relatively easy; if you don’t, you will waste a lot of time and probably get it wrong. Because the whole argument is about the steel industry, many people overlook the change in shift and wording from “employment in the steel industry” to “industrial employment.” They are not the same thing! If you see this shift, then you will recognize that the conclusion has a serious flaw: how do we know that stopping cheap steel imports is good for other industrial companies in Krenland and thus industrial employment in general?
The goal of this question (which you should be crystal clear on before moving to answer choices) is to attack the line of reasoning and expose a flaw in the argument. If you notice the shift in scope, then you can anticipate the answer: what if most industries in Krenland greatly benefit from the cheap steel because their products become more competitive domestically and internationally? In other words, it is entirely possible that stopping cheap steel imports will HURT industrial employment, which the conclusion suggests this action will protect.
Answer choice (C) perfectly exposes this potential scenario and is thus correct.
When analyzed carefully, you see that none of the other answers do anything to show why stopping cheap imports will NOT protect steelmakers or industrial employment. Most of these incorrect answers seek to explain why the imports are cheap, which is not important but is satisfying for many test-takers who don’t notice the word shift:
(A) does nothing to weaken the argument because the issue at play for steel makers is their domestic sales, not their exports.
(B) the international treaties are not relevant to the conclusion – why the imports are cheap does not matter.
(A) again, it is not important to know how or why the imports are cheap – the conclusion is just to stop them
(B) this can again explain the difference in prices for steel, but does not address the conclusion.
When attacking a “weaken” question like this, you should always start by deconstructing the argument and understanding exactly the line of reasoning. To summarize this argument:
Premise One: Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower priced imports that often result from unfair practices banned by international treaties.
Premise Two: These imports are going to result in job losses in Krenland’s steel industry
Conclusion: The government should reduce cheap steel imports in order to protect not only the steel industry but also industrial employment in Krenland.
Did you notice that shift in wording and scope in bold? If you do, this problem is relatively easy; if you don’t, you will waste a lot of time and probably get it wrong. Because the whole argument is about the steel industry, many people overlook the change in shift and wording from “employment in the steel industry” to “industrial employment.” They are not the same thing! If you see this shift, then you will recognize that the conclusion has a serious flaw: how do we know that stopping cheap steel imports is good for other industrial companies in Krenland and thus industrial employment in general?
The goal of this question (which you should be crystal clear on before moving to answer choices) is to attack the line of reasoning and expose a flaw in the argument. If you notice the shift in scope, then you can anticipate the answer: what if most industries in Krenland greatly benefit from the cheap steel because their products become more competitive domestically and internationally? In other words, it is entirely possible that stopping cheap steel imports will HURT industrial employment, which the conclusion suggests this action will protect.
Answer choice (C) perfectly exposes this potential scenario and is thus correct.
When analyzed carefully, you see that none of the other answers do anything to show why stopping cheap imports will NOT protect steelmakers or industrial employment. Most of these incorrect answers seek to explain why the imports are cheap, which is not important but is satisfying for many test-takers who don’t notice the word shift:
(A) does nothing to weaken the argument because the issue at play for steel makers is their domestic sales, not their exports.
(B) the international treaties are not relevant to the conclusion – why the imports are cheap does not matter.
(A) again, it is not important to know how or why the imports are cheap – the conclusion is just to stop them
(B) this can again explain the difference in prices for steel, but does not address the conclusion.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are lo...
Explanation:
Impact of Raw Material Costs:
- The editorial argues that cheap steel imports are hurting Krenland's steel industry and industrial employment.
- It suggests that reducing cheap steel imports could protect both steel companies and jobs in Krenland.
Weakener - Option C:
- This option weakens the argument by highlighting that steel constitutes a significant part of raw material costs for many Krenlandian manufacturers facing international competition.
- If reducing cheap steel imports increases raw material costs for these manufacturers, it could negatively impact their competitiveness and overall business viability.
- This suggests that protecting the steel industry through measures to reduce imports may not necessarily lead to the desired outcomes for industrial employment in Krenland.
Conclusion:
- Option C weakens the argument by pointing out the potential negative consequences of increased raw material costs on Krenlandian manufacturers facing international competition.
Impact of Raw Material Costs:
- The editorial argues that cheap steel imports are hurting Krenland's steel industry and industrial employment.
- It suggests that reducing cheap steel imports could protect both steel companies and jobs in Krenland.
Weakener - Option C:
- This option weakens the argument by highlighting that steel constitutes a significant part of raw material costs for many Krenlandian manufacturers facing international competition.
- If reducing cheap steel imports increases raw material costs for these manufacturers, it could negatively impact their competitiveness and overall business viability.
- This suggests that protecting the steel industry through measures to reduce imports may not necessarily lead to the desired outcomes for industrial employment in Krenland.
Conclusion:
- Option C weakens the argument by pointing out the potential negative consequences of increased raw material costs on Krenlandian manufacturers facing international competition.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Similar GMAT Doubts
Top Courses for GMATView all
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Editorial in Krenlandian Newspaper:Krenland’s steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in Krenland’s steel industry. Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in Krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial’s argument?a)Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.b)The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.c)For many Krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.d)Because of advances in order-taking, shipping, and inventory systems, the cost of shipping steel from foreign producers to Krenland has fallen considerably in recent years.e)Wages paid to workers in the steel industry in Krenland differ significantly from wages paid to workers in many of the countries that export steel to Krenland.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup