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?
Some of the by-products of processing cashews are used for manufacturing paints and plastics.
Other countries in which cashews are processed subsidize their processing plants.
More people in Kernland are engaged in farming cashews than in processing them.
Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in Kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.
A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in Kernland off their land and into the cities.
选E。这个削弱是因果关系削弱吗。。。argument是取消关税导致更多的人失业吗？如果是，这个E怎么就削弱argument了啊？请高手帮我解答一下吧。。。
E) points out one cause of the high unemployment rate in the urban area. Lifting tariff could remove that cause. With some luck, the new positions created for homecoming farmers might outnumber the pink slips sent for workers in processing plants! So the net result of such tariff change might reduce the urban unemployment rate!
Therefore, E) makes the argument the author makes less likely.
The arugment hinges on the assumption that once the tariff is lifted --> farmer will sell MORE of their products to international processing plants instead of domestic processing plants --> lay-offs in domestic processing plants --> higher unemployment rate in urban areas.
E) says if the government do not lift the tariff, more unemployed farmer will go to urban areas and pop up urban unemployement rate.
