The source is CR Bible. I chose C which is incorrect.

1. Last year, the govemment of country A imposed large tariffs on steel imports in an effort to aid its domestic steel industry. Many domestic steel producers enjoyed record profits as a result, as foreign steel producers were in many cases unable to compete effectively under the burden of the newly imposed tariffs.
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the passage?
(A) Not all steel producers were unaffected by country’s newly imposed tariffs.
(B) Some foreign steel producers were able to compete effectively in country A even after the new tariffs were imposed.
(C) After the new tariffs were imposed, most foreign steel producers were unable to compete effectively with countryA's domestic steel producers.
(D) Most domestic steel producers were able to increase their profits after the new tariffs were imposed.
(E) If a government intends to protect a domestic industry, the imposition of tariffs on imports is generally an effective approach.

Hi,

Can you please specify what you don't understand about the question?

Thanks

Sunil

This is a tricky one :)

'best support(ed)' questions are basically inference. Option is best supported but not explicitly stated in argument.

Argument: 'many' domestic producers profited
'many' foreign producers unable to compete effectively

(A) Not All PRODUCERS ... (would have make sense if 90 - 95 percent of producers were unaffected). Here because many DOMESTIC as well as many FOREIGN affected. it is definitely wrong

(B) SOME 'foreign producers' compete effectively (some + some = 100 percent, many + not many/a few = 100 %) If 'SOME' is replaced by 'FEW' answer will be correct :)

(C) MOST 'foreign producers' => (Wrong because argument itself says MANY.) (BTW, many more most ARE the degrees)

(D) Same problem as C.

(E) BEST among the options.

IMO (E).

Hope that Helps!

the OA is A according to the CR Bible.

I think Option A) is good.

Option A) -> Pretty convincing since we know for sure that some steel producers (be it domestic or foreign) have been impacted with the new tariff plan. To be sure, we'll consider other options as well.

Option B) -> This seems well reasoned, but rather isnt quite. We know that some foreign steel companies failed to compete effectively, but we dont know anything about the competetiveness of other companies. May be they competed, but not quite 'effectively'

Option C) -> The passage states that 'many' foreign companies were unable to compete effectively. But 'many' need not be 'most'. Many is just a large number.

Option D) -> Again the same flaw of drawing a many -> most conclusion

Option E) -> We do not know if the new tariff plan was effective as a whole. Some companies did draw profits, but as a whole 'effectiveness of an approach' is a very broad term to be attributed only to the fact that some companies did well.

So option A) remains best choice.

Good analysis. When A says that not all were unaffected, that means some were actually affected. This is pretty clearly supported by the argument, which describes some direct effects on foreign steel producers as a result of the tariff..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor