A number of measures indicate the viability of a nation’s economy. The

Although i choose C , I still do not know why A is incorrect?

Expert please shed the light on this question.

Thank you.

A states that economic viability is independent of the size of the population. The size of the population can be small or large. In the question stem, we are given information ONLY about smaller populations, and therefore, cannot reach conclusions about larger populations.

C reaches a conclusion on the basis of information provided, which is why it is a much better option than A.

Cheers.

Why C weighs more than A is explained very nicely at below link.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q16-a-number-of-measures-indicate-t5804.html


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if helpful!

Out of A and C,Lets see which one wins

(B) Having a population larger than seven million ensures that a nation will be economically viable.
Nowhere this is mentioned.

(D) A nation’s population is the most significant contributor to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.
Population is not at all given as a reason for any aggregation.

(E) A nation’s population affects the level and rate of growth of aggregate output more than it affects unemployment and inflation rates.
Population is not at all given as a reason for any aggregation.


(A) A nation’s economic viability is independent of the size of its population.
IMO, this is a very strong claim.
Nowhere in the argument they are saying that it is independent or even dependent on the population.

(C) Economic viability does not require a population of at least seven million.
This actually is is sync with the last line of the argument
Further, Switzerland, Austria, Israel, Ireland, Denmark, and Finland all have viable economics, but none has a very large population. Switzerland and Austria each have populations of about seven million; the other populations are at least one-fourth smaller..

So we can infer that from those lines.

A is too extreme. It may happen that some low cutoff of population is required (let's say 2mn, which every mentioned country satisfies) to be economically viable.

A good way to eliminate A is to remember that if you don't see a relationship between two things in the stimulus, you can't comment on the relationship. So below two statements cannot be inferred:
1.A nation’s economic viability is independent of the size of its population.
2.A nation’s economic viability is dependent on the size of its population.

TAKE ON FROM THE STATEMENT: 1) Population may contribute, but it is not most important factor.}
2) Nations with Population of 7B or less can be viable. No Info about more


(A) A nation’s economic viability is independent of the size of its population.((cant be inferred.))
(B) Having a population larger than seven million ensures that a nation will be economically viable.((None viable nations are mentioned with 7B+ population))
(C) Economic viability does not require a population of at least seven million.((Yes, as last line suggests))
(D) A nation’s population is the most significant contributor to the level and rate of growth of aggregate output.((No, as mentioned. it is level and rate of growth of aggregate output))
(E) A nation’s population affects the level and rate of growth of aggregate output more than it affects unemployment and inflation rates. ((cant be inferred))

So the correct answer is C

A straightforward question in which the correct option can be directly inferred from the last line of the argument.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.