|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink]
 24 Dec 2007, 03:28
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
Please explain your answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Seven Countries [#permalink]
24 Dec 2007, 05:16
tarek99 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
Please explain your answer
How about 'B'
On second thoughts I find 'D' better. hence 'D' will be my choice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
I chose answer choice D as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1108
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
80
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Seven Countries [#permalink]
25 Dec 2007, 03:11
If each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action, the fixed date could be put off....so A seems correct. D doesn't seem right because the activity could also be simoultaneous
OA???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 0
|
Since action of each country is conditional on simultaneous actions by other countries, it creates a dependency cycle. Each country can avoid an action due to this condition. Hence, each country will have an excuse for its lack of compliance.
I go for C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 89
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
I also like "C"..
"A" does not seem correct. We have "fixed dates", meaning that it has already been decided on the them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Seven Countries [#permalink]
27 Dec 2007, 09:32
tarek99 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- The date is fixed. No mention of postponement
(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-No metion of preferential treatment to one country
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance- There is no indiaction of excuse
(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-here lies the problem. How can you notify and do the action at the same time-Correct answer
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete- Starting date and simultaneous action is specified. No discussion on how long the action is to complete the requirements of the treatyPlease explain your answer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
namurad wrote: Since action of each country is conditional on simultaneous actions by other countries, it creates a dependency cycle. Each country can avoid an action due to this condition. Hence, each country will have an excuse for its lack of compliance.
I go for C.
I did not pick C because it is stated that the date is fixed. and the same logic applies for A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
