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

It is currently 24 Oct 2014, 12:52

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:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 258
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 06:21
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

43% (02:05) correct 57% (02:07) wrong based on 7 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.

Kindly explain your choices, so that i know what logic is being applied...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 96
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 06:51
A

Since each country must act SIMULTANEOUSLY, there could not a single compliance date suitable to all seven countries to do so.
_________________

Brainless

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 26 Sep 2003, 11:32
IMO, the answer is C.

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".
_________________

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

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 258
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2003, 20:17
C is indeed the right answer.
thanks
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Posts: 79
Location: Brazil
Schools: CBS '16
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 33

Re: [#permalink] New post 17 Dec 2013, 13:26
Can someone point the "provision" that this argument talks about?
And then, E is sounding, since each country will have to tell when their action ceased - so they can finish at different times, no?

What is the source of this problem? It looks very good.



AkamaiBrah wrote:
IMO, the answer is C.

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".
Re:   [#permalink] 17 Dec 2013, 13:26
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to sher676 12 05 Aug 2009, 13:08
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to shahnandan 4 12 Nov 2005, 06:14
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 rahulraao 21 18 Sep 2005, 16:46
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®.