carcass wrote:
In the early 1960s, Myanmar was the richest country in Asia, but then it closed its economy to the outside world and is now the poorest country in the region. However, Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world once again, and so will soon regain its former glory. Thus it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of a country
(B) The countries that dealt with Myanmar in 1962 will still be interested in dealing with it
(C) If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.
(D) The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is not responsible for its current financial state.
(E) At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar’s past glory
A - It is out of context . It talks about a generic conclusion i.e A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of
a country.
A closed economy has resulted for Mayanmar's poor economic condition , but this may not be true for other countries.
B - Irrelevant . If a country which dealt with Myanmar in 1962 is now not interested doesn't change the equation, as there could be other countries which may be interested in dealing with Myanmar
C - Its a restatement or ISWAT .
D- Correct - there are no other factors except for closed economy which resulted in Myanmar's poor economic condition. If we negate this statement the conclusion will shatter.
Because if the internal unrest is still present then opening up the economy may not serve the intended purpose.
E- OFS. Even if noone is currently aware of Myanmar's past glory , they can eventually make out once Myanmar's economy starts growing