I also hesitated between the options of C and D. But, now I grasped it.

passage says kiwi not in the formula anymore then manufacturers might have terminated the contract, then how is this weakening the claim?pls explain.

I am not quite sure if you wanna explanation why is D the best option and why is NOT C the right answer.

Let me know

d is the answer but c is not weakening the argument rather strengthening it, bcoz if contract is terminated then megapower cannot make vitamin with old formula(researchers say new replaced old)

option c states that The manufacturers of Megapower chose not to renew their contract with the Tasmanian kiwi growers. It does not stipulate the type of contract. It could be any contract and for that matter not necessarily a contract of purchasing kiwi from the kiwi growers.

C is out of scope of the argument compared to D as it is bringing " contract" as we do not know the contract was specifically about import of kiwis. Whereas D clearly strengthens giving direct reasoning.

where can i find the experts post on best quality questions(manhattan, kaplan,pearson,.....).?
thanks in advance.

Here you do have tons of questions

Verbal

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/the-princ ... -5761.html

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/the-5-lb- ... -8822.html

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/greprepcl ... -3488.html

Quant

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/greprepcl ... -3523.html

Ask for anything you could need.

Regards

A) Irrelevant information; does not help conclude that Megapower does not use kiwi.
B) Irrelevant information; does not help conclude that Megapower does not use kiwi.
C) The manufacturers of Megapower chose not to renew their contract with the Tasmanian kiwi growers; they may simply establish contracts with others; since one cannot certainly say that Megapower does not use kiwi
D) Imports of kiwi fruit have fallen in the country where Megapower is manufactured. This can mean that kiwi imports have fallen due to the fact that Megapower now does not use kiwi
E) Other items does not necessarily affect the Megapower's use of kiwi

It is not that C weakens the argument. It is just that C does not strengthen the support given by the evidence. What is the evidence here ? - decrease in exports. Not renewing the contract does indicate that new formula does not have the kiwi extract but this evidence has nothing to do with decrease in exports. Please remember that we have the strengthen the evidence - conclusion relationship and not just the conclusion.

"Because C weaken the argument. Moreover, megapower could be getting kiwi from other resources."

Then why can't we say for D, that there could be other reasons that led to decrease in import of kiwi in those mentioned countries rather than just Megapower not using kiwi anymore"

When the maker of Megapower, a vitamin supplement, modified its formula two years ago, Tasmania, an island off the coast of New Zealand, suffered a decrease in its export earnings. - Meaning that change in formula does not require import of that particular thing. (In this case, Kiwi as it constitutes major world supply)

Researchers concluded that the old Megapower formula contained natural kiwi extract, but the new formula does not. - Meaning that old formula required import of Kiwi and the new one does not.

We need to support this claim.

A) Some South American countries have begun to grow kiwi fruit successfully. (Do those countries have Megapower supplement? Don't know. Hence, inconsistent)
B) United States chemists have started development of a synthetic kiwi extract. (Does the new formula require Kiwi? - Don't know. Hence, Inconsistent)
C) The manufacturers of Megapower chose not to renew their contract with the Tasmanian kiwi growers. (Opposite. Meaning that they still require Kiwi.)
D) Imports of kiwi fruit have fallen in the country where Megapower is manufactured. (Meaning that due to new formula, this country does not require Kiwi. It does bolden our conclusion)
E) There was a marked drop in sales of a number of formerly profitable items that used kiwi as an ingredient.(Out of scope)

Hence, D

Hope this helps.

For C) - my understanding is that the phrase "chose not to renew" indicates that Megapower previously had a contract with Tasmanian kiwi growers (makes sense - Megapower previously needed kiwi extract), but this contract is no longer needed - that is, Megapower is no longer buying kiwis from Tasmanian kiwi growers. So, this indicates that Megapower is probably no longer needing kiwi. So, wouldn't this be in line with the researcher's conclusion, rather than opposite?

A couple of other commenters have said that technically, Megapower could have gained contracts with other kiwi growers. However, we are told that Tasmania's export constitutes a substantial portion of the world supply of kiwis, so it would be difficult for Megapower to get additional kiwi elsewhere. Without additional information, there is no reason to believe that Megapower was able to get kiwi from elsewhere.

Moreover, an argument in the same vein can be used against D) - that is, it could be that other importers (in the country that Megapower is manufactured in) reduced their demand. We are not given any information on how significant an impact Megapower has on the share of imports.

It seems to me that the counterargument against D) is actually stronger than the counterargument against C), since for D) there's no reason to go either way with the counterargument, whereas with C) we are told in the passage that Tasmania constitutes a substantial portion of the world supply, weakening the counterargument that Megapower could have just bought kiwis from elsewhere.

The way I see it that contract renewal doesn't necessarily mean the exports would decrease immediately as is the case.

Say Megapower has a contract that expires in 2025, they can choose not to renew their contract now. That wouldn't mean the export of Tasmania would decrease in 2024 as compared to 2023.