yes C is implied in the problem stateent but it is not 1005 clear , for y to have started producing in X which is a commitment to sell only in X so it should be first c is established for moving to country x and then other economic assumptions
Thanks for the detailed explanation tommy..![:)]( "Smile")
narangvaibhav wrote:
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,
This is a tough question, and since it's one of ours, I figured I had to weigh in.
Conclusion: Company Y could increase profits by putting factory in Country X
Premise: Country X has heavy tariffs on imports
Assumption: People actually buy Company Y's stuff in Country X
This is a tough question because of answer choice A. You're supposed to look at it and say "Well, if they can't even open the factory, won't that negate the conclusion?" And you'd be right, if not for one little word in the passage: could. If this passage said, Company Y WILL make a big profit next year by building a factory, then answer choice A would be correct, because that makes it impossible for them to actually build the factory.
But this passage merely says they "could" make a profit by opening the factory. In this hypothetical universe, the factory has already opened. Whether or not there are impediments to making this happen is immaterial. The issue is whether the existence of the factory will make them a profit.
A: Company Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.
Problem: We don't need to know how hard it is to make the factory. The conclusion implies that the factory is already open.
B: Company Y currently produces no goods outside its home country.
Problem: This has no connection to whether or not they will make money if they DO produce goods outside the home country.
C: A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.
Answer: You can't make a profit if nobody's buying, no matter how many tariffs you dodge.
D: Company Y's home country does not impose tariffs on imported goods.
Problem: This doesn't matter, because Company Y wants to make a profit on goods sold in Country X.
E: Labor costs in Country X are lower than those in Company Y's home country.
Problem: This strengthens the argument a bit (because the factory in Country X will be cheaper, leading to potential profit), but it isn't necessary. If we take the negation ("Labor costs in Country X are NOT lower than in Country Y), the argument does not fall apart.
Hope that helps!
This is a tough question, and since it's one of ours, I figured I had to weigh in.
Conclusion: Company Y could increase profits by putting factory in Country X
Premise: Country X has heavy tariffs on imports
Assumption: People actually buy Company Y's stuff in Country X
This is a tough question because of answer choice A. You're supposed to look at it and say "Well, if they can't even open the factory, won't that negate the conclusion?" And you'd be right, if not for one little word in the passage: could. If this passage said, Company Y WILL make a big profit next year by building a factory, then answer choice A would be correct, because that makes it impossible for them to actually build the factory.
But this passage merely says they "could" make a profit by opening the factory. In this hypothetical universe, the factory has already opened. Whether or not there are impediments to making this happen is immaterial. The issue is whether the existence of the factory will make them a profit.
A: Company Y will be able to obtain all the necessary permits to open a factory in Country X.
Problem: We don't need to know how hard it is to make the factory. The conclusion implies that the factory is already open.
B: Company Y currently produces no goods outside its home country.
Problem: This has no connection to whether or not they will make money if they DO produce goods outside the home country.
C: A sustainable market for Company Y's goods currently exists in Country X.
Answer: You can't make a profit if nobody's buying, no matter how many tariffs you dodge.
D: Company Y's home country does not impose tariffs on imported goods.
Problem: This doesn't matter, because Company Y wants to make a profit on goods sold in Country X.
E: Labor costs in Country X are lower than those in Company Y's home country.
Problem: This strengthens the argument a bit (because the factory in Country X will be cheaper, leading to potential profit), but it isn't necessary. If we take the negation ("Labor costs in Country X are NOT lower than in Country Y), the argument does not fall apart.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for the detailed explanation tommy..
