The Eritrean government, in an attempt to increase the revenue of the new manufacturing industries, banned imports of the types of products those industries were starting to make. As a direct result, the cost of those products to the buyers, several export-dependent industries in Eritrean, went up sharply limiting the ability of those industries to compete effectively in their export markets.

Which of the following can be most properly inferred from the passage about the products whose importation was banned?

  1. Those products had been cheaper to import than they were to make within Eritrea’s manufacturing industries.
  2. Those products were ones that Eritrea was hoping to export in its turn, once the manufacturing industries matured.
  3. Those products used to be imported from just those countries to which Eritrea’s exports went.
  4. Those products had become more and more expensive to import, which resulted in a foreign trade deficit just before the ban.
  5. Those products used to be imported in very small quantities, but they were essential to Eritrea’s economy.


Summary of the argument: As the result of the government banning the imports, there is a decline in the price for the products buyers, several export-dependent industries went up and affecting the competitiveness of the exports market.

  1. If this were not true, then the effect on the exporting industries would not have been so severe, and the ban would not have even been necessary. Hence, this is the right answer.
  2. The argument talks about several export-dependent industries, but that does not mean these particular products were intended for export. Hence eliminated.
  3. The argument says “export markets”, it does not say anything about where the exports went. Hence eliminated.
  4. The argument does not say anything about the products expense becoming higher. Hence eliminated.
  5. This information is irrelevant for the argument. Hence eliminated.

Talk to an expert?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.