PT 41 S1 Q16 Forum

[WordPass]

I'm down to C and D.

Doesn't D call into question the argument because the grain the government is in hold of (the rest of the grain, distributed for local consumption) is actually commercially sold? D says they purchase the grain commercially in the event of a production shortfall. They also are in possession of "most of the rest" per the stimulus. So, the analyst idea that only a "small percentage" of the world production is sold commercially is weakened.

C seems like an okay answer choice, but how it this stronger than D?

[WordPass]

Any pro/specialist care to evaluate my reasoning on this one? It's a weaken question (most calls into question).

[Rhymes With Wolf]

Production has decreased, and prices have increased. We are asked to weaken the analyst's explanation (the conclusion) for the price increase. To do so, we'll be looking for something that undermines the explanation that this is due to only a small percentage being sold commercially.

C. This answer says governments are responding to the shortage by putting EVEN MORE rice - rice that was once reserved for local distribution - out on the market to be sold commercially. This weakens the conclusion because, if governments are making an even higher percentage commercially available, the availability is less likely the culprit for the price increase.

D. If anything, this answer strengthens the conclusion. In addition to what they already hoard, governments are now removing even more from what is available on the market with their purchase. It is more likely, then, that the "small percentage" that everyone is competing for (people, and now governments) is causing higher prices. This supports the analysts' conclusion, that the scarcity (the "small percentage") of grain on the commercial market has caused the price increase.

[WordPass]

But wasn't one of the issues the fact that only a small percentage is commercially sold? Actually, this is EXACTLY what the analysts blame the increase in price on.


Answer choice D seems to tell us that actually, the government that is apparently hoarding this is really purchasing it commercially (and is thus being sold by someone else commercially). In addition to this, the fact that the government is in possession of the "rest" of the supply means that it isn't a small percentage, either.

Does that make sense or am I trippin'? I feel like that's pretty solid logic. I feel like since our task was to "call into question" ..this does the job and it doesn't take any logical leaps either.

I absolutely agree that Answer choice C also calls the argument into question, btw. This one just seems to me like it does so as well.

[Rhymes With Wolf]

Answer choice D seems to tell us that actually, the government that is apparently hoarding this is really purchasing it commercially (and is thus being sold by someone else commercially). In addition to this, the fact that the government is in possession of the "rest" of the supply means that it isn't a small percentage, either.

Not quite. The stimulus tells us they hoard most and sell a small percentage. The answer choice now tells us that, of what is sold commercially, some of that is being removed by governments purchasing it out of need.

Let's say 90% is kept, 10% is sold. This answer says that governments are now coming in and buying or competing for X% of that 10%, leaving even less for commercial sales when they buy it. This would support the analysts' argument that it's the small percentage causing the price increase, because that 10% is obviously not enough for everyone, especially now that the government is demanding it too.

[WordPass]

Let's say 90% is kept, 10% is sold. This answer says that governments are now coming in and buying or competing for X% of that 10%, leaving even less for commercial sales when they buy it.

Ah, gotchu. But the answer choice for D specifically says "purchase THE grain" commercially and it seems to not make a distinction between what they currently have and the other 10% (hypothetically). So the way I looked at it, it seemed as if the grains the government had were originally thought by the analysts to have not been purchased by government but he failed to consider that maybe they actually were ...and that they didn't just obtain by some other measure to give out.

[Rhymes With Wolf]

So the way I looked at it, it seemed as if the grains the government had were originally thought by the analysts failed to consider that the government maybe purchased it and didn't obtain it in some other way and just hand it out.

Remember, the conclusion is that the small percentage available commercially explains the price increase. Even if what the government kept on hand, instead of selling commercially, included what they purchased commercially, the fact that they're purchasing it at all, taking away from or competing for the small amount that is available, supports the conclusion instead of weakening it.

[WordPass]

Had a little issue with my keyboard so I edited my response if it didn't make sense. but, yeah, I understand it better now. Thanks!