Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we can see option B,C & E are plain and simple irrelevant and useless.
THE REAL CONTENDERS ARE OPTON A & OPTION D

The argument says :-
If Japan blocks Indian sugar coming to their market, then India should block Japanese steel coming to India.
This will Pressurise Japan to open his market for Indian Sugar. (There are 2 possibilities, Either Japan will open its market or Japan will try to pressurise India by blocking India wheat, Then again two things may happen:- Either india will allow japanese steel or it will block Japanese seafood and so on and on and on..)
The argument then concludes that:-If every country acts like this, then no country will be able to trade with each other.
So it is clear that the argument believes that one ban will lead to another ban.
It does not believe that one ban will make the other country to open its ban.

In essence this argument tells us Cause (Japan Bans X)-->effect (India Bans y)-->cause (Japan Bans z)--->effect (India Bans a)--->cause (Japan bans b)--->effect (India ban c) and so on.. this is what is called a vicious cycle.

Notice that How the conclusion presents a situation that is expected to happen but NOT REALLY happens in real world.
Why is it not happening:- May be because No country has closed market to other country.
For example :- If japan bans indian sugar, India Bans japanese steel, Then japan bans Indian leather, then india bans japanese electronics. Then japan send his surplus electronics to britian and britain tries to save its home grown industry and bans Japanese electronics. Japan then bans British meat, Britain then bans japanese sea food. Meanwhile India sends his surplus leather to US, US bans it for child labor issues, then India in response bans MacDonalds and pepsi and cococola, then america bans Indian software.. and so on.. then this cycle keep on happening. And at the end of the day no country will be able to trade with other country

So the argument assumes that this will happen when atleast one of the country will close its market to another country.

Which options states this
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.

CORRECT ANSWER IS D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first sentence describes the theory, and that is our given information. Remember, that this is just a theory, and we don't know whether this theory actually APPLIES to every country. For example, Country A might tell Country B that B is not allowed to sell any of its delicious fruit to Country A. According to the trade retaliation theory, Country B should retaliate by saying that Country A is not allowed to sell some of A's stuff in Country B. But Country B could easily decide NOT to act in accordance with that theory. They might be just as happy selling their fruit domestically or to other countries besides A, so B might not decide NOT to retaliate.

The author then says, "Well, imagine that EVERY country DID act according to the retaliation theory. In that case, no country would trade with any other." So the theory itself represents given information. The author then introduces a hypothetical situation ("well, what if EVERY country retaliates?"). The author concludes that in this hypothetical situation, no country would trade with any other. Countries would continue to retaliate until all trade was gone.

The second sentence is indeed the conclusion, but this conclusion is only valid IF we make the assumption in choice (D). It's a bit like the domino effect... if the first domino is still standing, then none of them will fall. If there are two countries that have NOT closed any markets to each other, then there would be no need to retaliate. Those countries might have firm policies to adhere to the retaliation theory, but if they are never given a REASON to act on that theory, then there will be no need to actually retaliate. The first domino is never tipped, so the countries continue trading.

I hope that helps!
_________________

I will try. my answer D.
Commentator's point is forwaded by the last statement, first if simply the theory. If a country follow the theory, it won't be able to trade (last sentence, considering one given conuntry), which means some of its markets will always be closed to other countries. Choice "A" is like a premise to "D".

B, C and E are simply out of scope.

D it is. 1.5 min
Let's negate it. If all countries have all of their markets open to each other, then there would not even be a reason for the very existence of the theory of retaliation
A is an unwarranted assumption. Some countries may and others may not be practicing it.

Commentator:
1) Theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.

2) If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other. <-- conclusion

We're asked to find an assumption which will make this conclusion true - that is, why following the theory of trade retaliation will result in no countries trading with each other

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
- Does this help us hold up the conclusion? No.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
- Not useful

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
- Out of scope

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
- If for any 2 countries, at least one has some market closed to the other, then it's true that all countries are not trading with each other if they closed their markets.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
- Not useful

D it is.

i'm not native speakers
really can't understand this sentence
"The theory of trade retaliation states
that countries closed out of any of another country’s
markets should close some of their own markets to
the other country in order to pressure the other
country to reopen its markets."

would anyone kindly give me an explanation about this?
another, other, their market.......oh my god, which is which..........
and wht does "close out" mean

Consider small segments of the sentence one at a time:
The theory of trade retaliation states
Ok so the author will tell us what some theory says

that countries closed out of any of another country’s
markets
Let's say X is closed out (not allowed to trade in) to Y's steel and oil markets (Y is the another country)

should close some of their own markets to the other country
X should close some of its own markets to Y (this is the other country)

in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.
in order to pressure Y to reopen its markets.

Ignore the red part and then read. The red part is just modifying 'countries'

The theory of trade retaliation states
that countries closed out of any of another country’s
markets should close some of their own markets to
the other country in order to pressure the other
country to reopen its markets.
country - X, another/other country - Y
_________________

The stimulus is saying that a tit-for-tat approach will just render international trade meaningless because each country would close some other market in retaliation to the other country's decision to close some market. This process would then continue till all markets for each country are closed to all others, and no country would trade with any other.

For this to happen, each country must close at least one market to every other country to begin the chain. This is exactly what option D states and is therefore the right answer.

My 2 cents

Trade retaliation theory says that one country should close some of its markets in retaliation if other country is also closing some market ( as give in question )

Now Commentator arrives at conclusion that if every country followed this theory than no country would trade with each other.

Now Commentators point of view : Countries are not following this theory, if country A has closed some of its market for country B then as per the theory country B should also have closed some of its market, and in that case no one will be able to trade, but that is not the case country A has closed some of its market and B is not following this theory that is the reason they are able to trade with each other.

Therefore D is right. Commentator assumes that country A has some market closed for country B, but they are still trading, bcz they are not following trade retaliation theory, else they would not be trading.

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other. ( but these countries are still trading bcz they are not acting as per the theory)
now relate above assumption to " if every country followed this theory than no country would trade with each other."

Option A's scope is wide and vague, No country.

Give a deep thought for 5min at least, this question is a brain twister, and option A and D appear possible choices.

GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Is not the second sentence an example of premise (mentioned in first sentence) ?
I faltered at identifying main conclusion here.
_________________

Sorry, Need some further explanation. So, is the market retaliation theory not a premise? what is it then? Also, can you please explain why "A" is not correct?

the conclusion is "if countries act like this ..no country ..." rests on the fact that countries are actually following this theory.
(A) seemed tempting but now i see that if i negate A "some countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." doesnt actually do anything to the conclusion. what if option A "ALL countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." ? would (A) be correct then?

==================

Edited after rereading your explanation -

so, first sentence IS the premise and what autor says is the conclusion. But that will be true only if some country has already closed something, if they havent then the cycle doesnt begin. Is my understanding correct? also, i still can't go past (A), please explain that.

Exactly! For any pair of countries, the cycle will only begin IF one country closes some market to the other.


As for choice (A), I think you are on the right track. The author is posing a hypothetical situation: What if EVERY country acts according to that theory? The author doesn't care about who ACTUALLY acts according to that theory.

Consider the following example:

Scientist: "If every person in the world were to become a vegetarian, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by 25%"
Critic: "Yea, but not everyone in the world is a vegetarian, so you're wrong."
Scientist: "I know that. I said, 'IF every person in the world were to become vegetarian...'"

The scientist doesn't care whether all, some, or none of the people are currently vegetarian. Similarly, the Commentator doesn't care whether all, some, or none of the countries actually act according to the theory.

Let us know if you still have questions!
_________________

Premises:
Theory: countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country

Conclusion: If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

Note the extreme language of the conclusion - ... NO country will trade with any other.

What is the missing necessary premise? For no country to trade with any other, in any pair of countries, one must have some of its market closed to the other. Then if the theory is applied, the other country will also close trade with the first country. This NEEDS to be true for every pair of countries. That is why, option (D) is correct.


(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
Note that our conclusion is about what will happen if every country acted according to this theory. What actually happens is irrelevant.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
Again, what should happen is irrelevant to our argument. We are discussing what happens if every country acted according to this theory.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
Not an assumption. How disputes should be settled is irrelevant.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
WHY countries close their markets to other countries is irrelevant.
_________________

Would you be able to explain why B is incorrect? I still don't understand, based on the solutions given.

Take another look at the passage's conclusion:

Here, the author introduces a hypothetical situation ("If every country acted according to this theory"), and then says what he/she thinks would happen in that situation ("no country would trade with any other").

Answer choice (B) states that "No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade." The problem with this answer choice is that the author's argument has nothing to do with what a country should do (or not do). The author makes an argument about what would happen in a hypothetical situation. What a country should do has no impact on the author's argument, so this cannot be an assumption upon which the argument relies.

I hope this helps!
_________________

The correct answer - option D.

Let us see why.

Conclusion: No country would trade with any other.
Given:
1. Every country acts as per Trade Retaliation Theory
2. Trade Retaliation Theory:
- countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets
- i.e. if A closes out B, then B will close out A too, to apply pressure to reopen.

Falsification Question: in what scenario would at least some countries trade with each other, even if every country acts as per this theory?

Falsification Condition: To visualize this easily

Let us assume there are 3 countries A,B,C,D,E

Every country acts as per this theory.

Lets say,
1. A closed out B. So B will also close out A
2. B closed out C. So C will also close out B
3. But what if A did not close out C. Then C would have no reason to close out A.
4. C did not close out A either. So A would have no reason to close out C.

What does this mean: if there exists even one pair of countries such that neither of the two has closed their market to the other (A and C in this example), then the author cannot conclude that no country would be able to trade with one another (A and C would continue to trade).

So, the Assumption: There does not exist any pair of countries where neither has closed the market to the other OR between any 2 countries, at least one has closed the market to the other (also means the same, logically!)

Option Choice Analysis:

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.

The author's conclusion is based on the hypothetical premise that all countries act as per the theory of trade retaliation. Whether this is what happens in reality is immaterial and therefore irrelevant to the author's argument.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
Again, What a country should or should not do is immaterial to this argument. Our argument is looking at the hypothetical premise - if countries block trade with other countries based on the theory of trade retaliation, what would happen?

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
The argument is not about how trade disputes should be settled (by theory of trade retaliation or tribunal or something else). It is about what happens when countries go by the theory.

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
Exactly as per our prethinking

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
The motives/reasons why companies close their markets has no relevance to the author's argument. Also we are given that the closing of the market is a response against the other country rather than as a means to protect domestic producers.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma AndrewN

I just recently solved this question from the official guide. I could not confidently eliminate choice A, but after reading the expert explanations in the thread I think I am getting close. Could you please address my 2 questions below?

1. The official explanation for choice A says:

The argument does not assume that no country acts according to the theory, just that not all countries do so.

What does this even mean? How do I make sense of this sentence?
The reason I am asking this doubt is I want to enhance my ability to think more like test makers. Could you please weigh in and help me make sense of this.

2. Going forward, I will be solving many more questions from OG, How to tackle this problem of not being able to make sense of official explanations? I see a lot advice on the GC that you need to understand these explanations but I feel there are some instances where these are written very poorly.

Hello, abhola. To tackle both of your questions at once, I would not worry too much about the official explanations. I find that they are often ham-fisted and none to helpful, to be honest. The explanations on GMAT Club are frequently much better and more to-the-point than the official ones (not that every OE is poorly written). I can appreciate your efforts to "think more like [the] test makers." This approach helped me a lot with CR in particular. But believe it or not, the questions themselves and the official explanations to those questions are not always written by the same person, a fact that can shed some light on why some OEs seem thorough and helpful while others are threadbare or confusing. For CR, the task of thinking like the test-maker boils down to following what I call the linear logic of the passage and question stem. In this case, the exact argument presented is that if every country acted according to [the theory of trade retaliation], no country would trade with any other. To find the straight-arrow logic that leads from the definition of that theory in the first line of the passage to the argument, we need to stick strictly to the passage. Choice (A) is too extreme in asserting that no country is acting under the theory. For instance, if Country X decided to withdraw from trading with Country Y because Y had decided to block, say, the gum-trading market with X, then that would not mean that every country would necessarily be affected. Perhaps another country, Country Z, would pay no mind to what was going on between X and Y even if it traded with both. Remember, the argument follows a condition: if every country did something... The OE you quoted above correctly points out that the argument does not state that a single country could not act according to the theory. If the conditional statement is not met with the answer choice, then it cannot be the answer. But if you wedge choice (D) between the two lines of the passage, you will see a straight-arrow logic leading from background information to the argument that is made:

Premise/Background Information: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.

Assumption: For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.

Conclusion: If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The pieces fit perfectly together. In short, I would not worry too much about the OEs. Sometimes they are great, sometimes not so great. If you find one that leaves you scratching your head, look up the question in the forum and, if you still cannot find a better, clearer explanation, request an Expert reply.

I hope that helps address your concerns. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.
The commentator tells us about a theory – the theory of trade retaliation.

The theory talks about those countries that are blocked from any markets of another country. The theory recommends that such countries should reciprocate in the same way. I.e., they should close some of their own markets to the other country. The objective of this retaliation is to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.

(In this statement, the commentator does not share her own opinion. She simply tells us what the theory states.)

If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.
The commentator believes that if every country retaliated to market closures by another country by closing some of its markets to that country, eventually no country would trade with any other.

(Something like ‘an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind’. Essentially, the author believes that the act of retaliating by closing some markets would lead to further retaliation and eventual complete closure of markets for all pairs of countries.)

Gap(s) in logic

1. What if some pairs of countries have all their markets open to each other? In that case, the countries would not need to go down this rabbit hole, and so trade between countries would not stop. Basically, what if there isn’t even a trigger that leads the countries down this path?
2. Even if there are some markets of all countries that are closed to other countries, is it necessary that such retaliation will continue till all markets are closed? What if countries foresee such a loss-loss outcome and come to some mutual arrangement to prevent complete closure of markets? Basically, if the countries have started down this path, does it necessarily mean they will keep going down the rabbit hole all the way to the end?

Now, can one argue that in such a case, the countries are not acting according to the theory?
I don’t think so.

Say, country A has closed 5 markets to country B.
Then country B closes 3 of its markets to country A (from an earlier figure of 0).
Now, if country A is acting according to the theory, will it close some MORE of its markets to B?
Not necessarily.
Since the passage states: ”should close some of their own markets to the other country”. The passage doesn’t state that the countries should close some MORE of their own markets. Since country A has already closed some markets to the other country, it need not necessarily close more markets.

That’s why I believe the second point is also a gap in the argument.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

The commentator assumes that countries will have the initial trigger to go down this path.

And, once countries go down this path of retaliating by closing some of their markets, they will keep going down the rabbit home until no country would trade with any other.





(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
Incorrect.
This answer choice has no impact on the argument. The main point is a conditional. If every country acted according to the theory, international trade would close.

Let’s say I tell you: If I go to Mars, I’ll be happy.

1. Does my statement tell you that I am going to Mars?
No, right? That’s merely an if condition.
2. Let’s say someone tells you that Anish is not going to Mars. Would that change your belief in my statement “If I go to Mars, I’ll be happy”?
My original statement is about what would happen if I go to Mars. Would I be happy or not?
It is not about whether I’ll go to Mars. So, even if you learn that I am not going to Mars, my original statement will not be impacted by that new information.

The argument is about what would happen if a certain situation occurs. Whether the certain situation actually occurs or not is irrelevant.

The author does not assume anything about how the countries would actually be dealing with the theory. The commentator’s conclusion is about what would happen IF all countries acted according to the theory. How they actually act is irrelevant, and not necessary for the argument.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
Incorrect.
Let’s start with a variation of this answer choice.

(B’) No country blocks any of its markets to foreign trade.

What impact does this variation have on the argument?

This one is in line with the first gap I mentioned above. If no country blocks any market to foreign trade, there would not be any need to retaliate by closing some markets, and probably countries will continue to trade with each other. So, this variation weakens the argument.

You might be wondering: But if countries don’t close their markets to others, wouldn’t that mean that the countries are not acting according to the trade retaliation theory?

The answer is no.

Countries acting according to the theory would retaliate if there is a need to retaliate.

If there isn’t even a need to retaliate, they probably won’t. The theory is: if some other country closes some markets, you also close some markets to that country. If no country closes its markets to you, then perhaps you don’t close any of your markets to them.

Now, back to the original answer choice.

If this option is true, there is a chance that the initial trigger will not happen – if countries should not block, maybe they don’t block. So, the statement weakens the argument. Albeit, since the statement talks about what countries should do and not what they actually do, the impact is very marginal.

Since the statement anyway impacts the argument negatively, it can’t be an assumption.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
Incorrect.
Who should settle trade disputes is irrelevant to the argument and has no impact.

The argument never gets into settling trade disputes. The author does not express any preference either way. The argument does not rely on who should settle trade disputes.

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
Correct.
This one fits.

This answer choice strengthens the argument. It tackles the first gap related to ‘triggers’ I mentioned above.

What would happen if for some pairs of countries, neither has any market closed to the other (negation)? In that case, even if these countries acted according to the theory, they will not have that initial trigger to retaliate to the other country by closing some of its markets to the other. And thus, these pairs of countries will probably continue to trade with each other.

Even if every country acted according to the theory, for trade to actually stop, there has to be a need to retaliate. If there isn’t even a need to retaliate (i.e. if a pair of countries has all markets open to each other), even if in principle the countries follow the theory, the back and forth retaliation will not happen between the two countries, and thus international trade will not end.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
Incorrect.
This answer choice gives us a reason for why countries close their markets to foreigners – to protect domestic producers.

Why countries close their markets to others has no impact on the argument. The argument is about what would happen IF every country reacted to a closed international market by closing some of their own to the other country. The reasons behind the closures are irrelevant.