Partly because of bad weather, but also partly because some major pepper growers have switched to high-priced cocoa, world production of pepper has been running well below worldwide sales for three years. Pepper is consequently in relatively short supply. The price of pepper has soared in response: it now equals that of cocoa.

Some observers have concluded that the rise in the price of pepper means that the switch by some growers from pepper to cocoa left those growers no better off than if none of them had switched; this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because it can be inferred to be likely that

(A) those growers could not have foreseen how high the price of pepper would go
(B) the initial cost involved in switching from pepper to cocoa is substantial
(C) supplies of pepper would not be as low as they are if those growers had not switched crops
(D) cocoa crops are as susceptible to being reduced by bad weather as are pepper crops
(E) as more growers turn to growing cocoa, cocoa supplies will increase and the price of cocoa will fall precipitously

Please discuss as I am just a bit confused.

please, in the future, try to ask questions that are more specific than just "discuss" -- which parts of the problem that you find difficult? where, exactly, were you confused?

--

this is basically a weakening problem, a conclusion that can be reached from the following clue words:
this conclusion, however, is unwarranted because

this is a more straightforward clue than you will get on some other problems where you have to fill in the blank: in this problem, you are literally being told that you are looking for a reason why "the conclusion is unwarranted". that is the precise definition of a weakening statement, so you can use all the usual techniques that you would apply to weakening problems.

in particular, one of the most potent techniques that you have for weakening problems is SIMPLIFYING THE ARGUMENT.
the simplified argument here is:
people switched from pepper to cocoa.
therefore, there is now less pepper, so pepper prices increased up to the price of cocoa.
therefore, these farmers would have been just as well off had they stayed with pepper in the first place.

if you simplify the argument in this way, the hole in its reasoning becomes more clear than it otherwise would be: namely, the argument is assuming that the pepper prices still would have risen even if these farmers had not made the switch. that's a dubious conclusion, since the whole reason why the prices rose in the first place is because farmers were producing less pepper all of a sudden (i.e., as a result of a lot of them switching away to cocoa).

choice (c) addresses this problem, so that should be the correct answer.

--

was there any other answer choice that tempted you in this problem?