#16 - With decreased production this year in many

[lsatlearner]

I can understand neither the stimulus nor the correct answer choices for Prep Test 41, Section 1, Questions 16.

Can anyone please help me understand this problems? I am not sure if I'm allowed to post the exact questions here. Let me know!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lsatlearner,

Thanks for the question! If you provide a bit more information, like what about the stimulus or answer choices was confusing, which answer you selected and why, and how you approached this question, I'll be able to tailor my answer to the particular issues you're having with this one.

[lsatlearner]

Hi Emily,

Thank you for replying! Here is my understanding of the stimulus:

Less rice was produced this year, (and presumably demand for rice did not decrease), so prices increased to compensate for the smaller amount of available product. The analyst offers another explanation, that the price increased because governments control most of the product and only a small percent is sold commercially.

How is this an explanation for the price increase? Wasn't the price increase already explained by the fact that there is a decrease in product? Wouldn't the decreased production affect all markets equally, so it wouldn't matter how much the government controls of the rice market? I am not understanding the analyst's argument well enough to be able to weaken it, so none of the answer choices really made sense to me.

Looking at the right answer, I don't understand how it affects the analyst's argument. Is the answer supposed to offer another explanation for a price increase? If so, how does this answer choice achieve that?

I really appreciate the help!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, lsatlearner,

The conclusion depends upon the fact that the "small percentage" of rice that is sold commercially and not reserved by governments for local distribution is a fixed percentage and does not change even as supply and demand for rice change.

If answer choice C is true, though, that would mean that this percentage is not fixed, and the supply of rice that is sold commercially can be a greater percentage of the total rice grown in times of decreased rice production.

As an example, let's say that only 5% of all rice grown is sold commercially, and the remaining 95% is reserved locally. Given that, a small change in how much rice is grown would greatly affect how much rice is sold commercially. The analysts are saying that if, say, rice production falls by 10% and governments do not alter what percentage is made available for commercial sale, that would seriously decrease the amount of rice on the market.

If answer choice C is true, though, then in response to rice prices rising and generally decreased rice availability, governments could change the percentage of rice that is sold commercially to 10%, reserving only 90%. This would double the amount of rice on the market, hopefully well overcoming any shortfalls.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[benismyname]

This is an old thread, but I chose D over C. I see why C is correct, but is the below why D is wrong?

Analysts say we already have a small amount of rice on the world market. Then when there is a production shortage, it follows that producing countries put even less on the global market. D strengthens, rather than weakens, because it asserts that governments after production shortfalls will buy up already-scare grain on the global market to feed their people, which reduces the amount being traded freely. This would contribute to a price increase, and so D is consistent with/strengthens the argument. Is this correct reasoning? Thanks.

[James Finch]

Hi Ben,

The logic in the stimulus is that governmental controls on rice production have caused an increase in rice prices on the global market, as the controls mean that most rice isn't sold commercially, so when production is down in "many" countries, this leads to an assumed shortfall in the global markets, driving up the price.

The problem there is that we don't actually know that there is less rice on the international market, as "many countries" doesn't tell us much. That's the logical gap we need to weaken, by making it possible that there is actually as much or even more rice on the global market (ie no cause) with the price increases (the effect) still present.

(C) does this by allowing some of the rice controlled by governments to be diverted to the international market, throwing the stimulus's whole causal chain into question by allowing the diverted rice to potentially offset the production shortfalls. (D) has the opposite effect, forcing rice out of the international market and into the government-controlled ones, strengthening the argument in the stimulus that a shortfall in the international market has led to increased prices.

Hope this clears things up!