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

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 03:29

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:
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 07:59
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR: Binding Treaty [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 08:16
ak_idc wrote:
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


Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 18:01
go for a tough D.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 922
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 18:32
I am going with D.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 532
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 19:50
I chose C.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 20:31
Could not eleminate D.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 406
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2006, 22:48
Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

going by the statement above , D seems to be a possibility.............
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Re: CR: Binding Treaty [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2006, 00:16
dwivedys wrote:
ak_idc wrote:
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


Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..


I have to recant my earlier decision. D is right.

If each country was to notify the other countries when it had completed its action, then there's every possibility that THIS particular act would be the signal for the other countries to initiate action.

When I read this question - the first thing that struck my mind was - if every country is dependent on the OTHER countries notification - no one would ever begin action because they can easily cite the blame on other countries that they never notified in the first place. This just lead me to pick up C.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Binding Treaty [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2006, 01:43
dwivedys wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
ak_idc wrote:
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


Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..


I have to recant my earlier decision. D is right.

If each country was to notify the other countries when it had completed its action, then there's every possibility that THIS particular act would be the signal for the other countries to initiate action.

When I read this question - the first thing that struck my mind was - if every country is dependent on the OTHER countries notification - no one would ever begin action because they can easily cite the blame on other countries that they never notified in the first place. This just lead me to pick up C.


OA is C :wink: I was also misled by D.:oops:

I think...D is a repition of what is already stated in the argument.

Whcih of the following looks more meaninful?:lol:

The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that...each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance

The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that...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
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.


Last edited by ak_idc on 24 Nov 2006, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

 [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2006, 02:42
That's a fantastic morale booster one week before the test I must say!
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 922
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2006, 04:01
Now I get it. Thanks for posting this question ak_idc!
  [#permalink] 24 Nov 2006, 04:01
    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®.