Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 04:23

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Eternal Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 479
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink] New post 18 Jul 2003, 08:43
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:35) wrong based on 5 sessions
20. Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required.
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete.


( C) is defintely right. An excuse is non-compliance.

" with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries "

The way it reads is that one country depends on actions taken by other countries, but it doesn't mean it depends on all the other countries. So , I guess One can start if Two does something.

That's why D is wrong, right? I may not be right.

One way to judge the performance of a company is
to compare it with other companies. This technique,
commonly called "benchmarking," permits the manager
of a company to discover better industrial practices
and can provide a justification for the adoption of
good practices.

Any of the following, if true, is a valid reason for
benchmarking the performance of a company
against companies with which it is not in competi-
tion rather than against competitors EXCEPT:
(A) Comparisons with competitors are most likely
to focus on practices that the manager making
the comparisons already employs.
(B) Getting "inside" information about the unique
practices of competitors is particularly difficult.
(C) Since companies that compete with each other are
likely to have comparable levels of efficiency, only
benchmarking against noncompetitors is likely to
reveal practices that would aid in beating competitors.
(D) Managers are generally more receptive to new
ideas that they find outside their own industry.
(E) Much of the success of good companies is due to
their adoption of practices that take advantage of
the special circumstances of their products of markets.

E) refers to their competitors, but a fancy way of wording it?

Why is A) wrong!

A) Comparisons with competitors are most likely
to focus on practices that the manager making
the comparisons already employs.

They want to learn from noncompetitors. They already employ all industrial practices from competitors.
-- However, it also is a valid reason because they cannot learn from what they are already doing. They can only improve on the practices they already employ.
GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 771
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 19 Jul 2003, 18:52
Quote:
20. Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required.
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete.


( C) is defintely right. An excuse is non-compliance.

" with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries "

The way it reads is that one country depends on actions taken by other countries, but it doesn't mean it depends on all the other countries. So , I guess One can start if Two does something.

That's why D is wrong, right? I may not be right.



C is correct. but not for the reasons you state.

If you read C carefully, you can paraphrase as follow:

"The provision is structured in a way that compliance by every country might be impossible, hence justifying the lack of compliance by each country."

Sure enough, since all 7 countries must simultaneously act based on the simultaneous actions of everyon else, how can any country know in advance what every other country is going to do so that it, it turn, can properly comply? Hence, since the mechanics of the provision make it impossible to follow, any non-compliance is "excusable".


:help2

:beat
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2003
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

to curly [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2003, 06:15
where did you get this question from .. is that from the OG or some other book ,, man LR scares me now

HK
to curly   [#permalink] 30 Jul 2003, 06:15
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to Amit05 7 03 Jul 2007, 12:20
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to amansingla4 5 01 Jun 2006, 00:23
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to macca 2 21 Oct 2005, 06:06
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to rahuluec 11 16 Oct 2005, 09:34
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to WinWinMBA 6 26 Apr 2005, 15:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.