Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink]
08 Jun 2004, 00:36
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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 if possible.
OA will follow
C it is
E is second best choice but the problem with E is that each country had to complete an action by a fixed date as stipulated in the treaty. Hence, the date by which all actions should be completed should be well defined. However, the conditional clause will be an excuse to just any country to blame their non-compliance on any other country's fault
This is the only provision which is in line with the fact that the country which completed the action had to notify the 6 (all other) countries. Which means, that it's possible the countries didn't fix a date by which the action would be complete.
Additionally, the passage said that the 'action was to be simultaneous', which means 'done by all at the same time', therefore we can exclude all the choices which are trying to say that one country could do its action only after the previous one completed it, because it would make the actions the opposite of 'simultaneous'