Esteria vs Burdistan

[s.ashwin.rao]

The cost of manufacturing automobiles is considerably greater in Esteria than in Burdistan. In order to stimulate Esterian consumers’ purchases of domestically manufactured automobiles, the Esterian government has historically charged taxes on automobiles manufactured in Burdistan. Five years ago, however, the Esterian government dropped those taxes; in those five years, the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories has decreased by 30%. Therefore, the number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?


A) Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria.

B) The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period.

C) Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished.

D) Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan.

E) Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles.

OA: E

But I just don't get the logic here. How can E weaken this argument? I think E niether weakens nor strenghtens the argument.

Further I think this question is related to post50043.html#p50043

[RonPurewal]

did you read the answer key?
If this statement is true, then Esterian factories could maintain their pre-innovation production levels even with a 50% decrease in the number of workers. Therefore, if the decrease in the number of workers has only been 30%, it is quite possible that Esteria’s domestic manufacturing of automobiles has remained constant or even increased. In any case, this statement destroys the connection made in the passage between the decrease in the number of workers and a hypothesized decrease in automobile production.

if you read that and didn't understand it, then please point out *what* you didn't understand; if you just say "i didn't understand it", then our response is basically going to be a carbon copy of that answer key.
perhaps the difficulty is that you didn't understand the term "worker hours"; that refers to the total number of hours required to make the product, if you add up all the hours worked by each separate worker. so, if that quantity is cut in half, that means you can now make twice as many automobiles with the same number of workers.

[shaw.s.li]

I fell for answer C.

My logic was that if "many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles" -> the number of vehicles sold would not do down.

I think in my mind, I equated "many" > 50% or the word most. If I'm correct, I think the reason that C is wrong is because many doesn't mean more than 50%, and that other people may not have bought a car period.

Is that right?

[tim]

Oh you can totally not equate "many" with >50%. Be sure not to fall for that trap. The only thing you can say numerically for certain is that "many" means more than one. The rest of your analysis is irrelevant because it uses an incorrect starting point..

[arvindramachandran410]

I faced this in my CAT a few days and I fell for the trap too. I understand the basic reasoning in choosing E, but I eliminated E on account of uncertainty regarding if the factories in Esteria have adopted those recent innovations. Mere advancements in automated manufacturing would not make sense unless it were adopted in the Esterian factories -- which the passage does not give any information regarding. Could some one clarify this for me and let me know where I went wrong.

[jnelson0612]

I faced this in my CAT a few days and I fell for the trap too. I understand the basic reasoning in choosing E, but I eliminated E on account of uncertainty regarding if the factories in Esteria have adopted those recent innovations. Mere advancements in automated manufacturing would not make sense unless it were adopted in the Esterian factories -- which the passage does not give any information regarding. Could some one clarify this for me and let me know where I went wrong.

You just have to ask yourself which one weakens the most, and to weaken you usually attack an assumption. Let's break down the argument:
Conclusion: Esteria must be producing fewer cars
WHY?
Premise: Esteria has reduced the number of automobile manufacturing workers by 30%.
Assumption: The number of workers directly correlates to the number of cars produced.

The best way to weaken is to attack that assumption, by saying the number of workers DOES NOT necessarily correlate to the number of cars produced. Notice how E does this nicely. I think you are overthinking just a bit by worrying about whether the factories have implemented the technology. You just need to find a way to challenge this idea that the number of workers indicates the number of cars produced.

The takeaway: for weakens, try to identify the assumption and attack it. The correct answer is likely to do just that.

[shekhartathe2]

Even I chose answer E but I wasnt sure about it. how can a recent innovation in technology be used to weaken something which has been happening past 5 years ?

[jlucero]

Even I chose answer E but I wasnt sure about it. how can a recent innovation in technology be used to weaken something which has been happening past 5 years ?

First off, "recent" could absolutely refer to something happening within the last 5 years, especially when contrasted with the term "historically". Second, the statement says "in those five years, the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories has decreased by 30%" It doesn't say in which years that number went down. Even f you wanted to say recent only refers to something that happened yesterday, 5 years ago there might have been 100 workers, this morning 30 of them were laid off, so there are now 30% fewer workers employed.

[shekhartathe2]

Thank you.

[tim]

:)

[Julls]

The conclusion of this argument is : Therefore, the number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years. Answer choice E addresses only the "manufacture vehicles but not sold. I understand that no response addresses these two issues simultaneously. However, why we should prefer E over other choices in this case?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

The conclusion of this argument is : Therefore, the number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years. Answer choice E addresses only the "manufacture vehicles but not sold. I understand that no response addresses these two issues simultaneously. However, why we should prefer E over other choices in this case?
Thanks

Which answer choice do you think is better?

Clearly, you see the connection here. So, if something is the only choice that makes a connection, it's the right choice. End of story.
I.e., if you're going to question that answer choice, you need to have another choice to defend as "correct".

Remember, these are "strengthen"/"weaken" problems. Not "prove" or "destroy". So the connections don't have to address every single aspect of every single thing, as long as they connect, reasonably directly, to the issue at hand.