(D) The percentage of cacao trees affected by the fungus is irrelevant.
Regardless of the percentage, it would not change the fact stated by the
argument that “there was an unusually meager harvest of cocoa beans this
year.”
(E) It may seem useful to determine whether the fungus can be eliminated
within the next six months. However, the conclusion was not about the fungus
or the cacao crop, but rather the retail price of chocolate. The time frame for
the elimination of the fungus would only be relevant to the short-term retail
price of chocolate if you make several additional assumptions: that the harvest
immediately increases, that the resulting glut of cocoa beans immediately
offsets the “unusually meager harvest of cocoa beans this year,” that the
wholesale price of cocoa immediately drops to its pre-fungus level, and that
the retail price would not be affected in the meantime. You cannot make all of
these assumptions, so the answer to this question is irrelevant to the
conclusion.
16.
(A).
The argument rests on the assumption that there is a connection
between the one-time raw material price increase and the two-year steady
decline in profit margins. Alternatively, something else could have caused
either a steady two-year decline in revenues or a steady two-year increase in
costs; if so, this event is more likely to be the cause of a steady decline in
profit margins over the same two-year period. As a result, this would weaken
the engineer’s conclusion that finding a new source for the raw material will
improve profit margins.
Dostları ilə paylaş: