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?
- Because steel from Krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of Krenlandian steelmakers’ revenue comes from exports.
- The international treaties that some governments are violating by giving subsidies to steelmakers do not specify any penalties for such violations.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Answer & Explanation
Correct answer is (C).
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.
To succeed in critical reasoning, you must be able to recognize logical flaws and “tricks” quickly. This type of word shift is extremely common and becomes easy to notice when you are trained to look for it. As I joke with students: “There is no such thing as a synonym in GMAT critical reasoning!” If there is a slight change in wording or scope, it almost surely matters for recognizing a flaw in the given argument.
Unlock your full potential with our range of expert-led GMAT courses, tailored to meet the diverse needs of aspiring business leaders.
Sample GMAT Questions by Topic
