A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all

Question

A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all know that Y is a closed society. So Y's government must have known about the weapons.

Which of the following is an assumption that would make the conclusion above logically correct?

(A) If a government knows about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes.

(B) If a government claims that it knew nothing about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have known everything about it.

(C) If a government does not permit weapons to enter a country, it is a closed society.

(D) If a country is a closed society, its government has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders.

(E) If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country.

SonalSinha803 · Answer

(A) If a government knows about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes. - no question of using the weapons. OOS.

(B) If a government claims that it knew nothing about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have known everything about it. - first part OOS.

(C) If a government does not permit weapons to enter a country, it is a closed society. - this is the definition bof a closed society. Irrelevant.

(D) If a country is a closed society, its government has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders. - looks good and inline with the argument. Hold.

(E) If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country. - looks appealing but the problem here is "everything". We cannot conclude anything about everything from the given argument.

So, D for me.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

varun2209 · Answer

E.

Falsify the sentence E. And see if the conclusion ''So Y's government must have known about the weapons. '' still holds true. In this case, it doesn not. So, In order for the conclusion to hold true, E must also be true. (and since E is not explicitly mentioned in the paragraph, it must be an assumption)

gmatdordie · Answer

A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all know that Y is a closed society. So Y's government must have known about the weapons.

Which of the following is an assumption that would make the conclusion above logically correct?

(A) If a government knows about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes.

(B) If a government claims that it knew nothing about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have known everything about it.

(C) If a government does not permit weapons to enter a country, it is a closed society.

(D) If a country is a closed society, its government has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders.

(E) If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country.

E should be correct answer
D can be tempting , but D goes too far in talking about large contigent of armed guards

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that the government must have known about the weapons since the weapons-smuggling incident took place in a closed society (country Y).

We are asked to find the assumption. What must be true for the above to be true?

A - This may not be true. Just because someone knows something took place doesn't mean we can derive the motif of that someone.
B - Not necessarily. This doesn't bridge the gap between closed societies and the conclusion drawn
C - Not necessarily - we need to understand how the author derived the awareness of the government to the weapons incident.
D - this is really off the beaten path
E - Correct. This must be true otherwise our conclusion doesn't work. The government must know about everything in a closed society in order for the author to make his conclusion the way he or she did.

RemcoVT · Answer

E is correct.

I understand D can be tempting, but D goes too far in talking about out of the scope

ankitabiswas · Answer

The passage is talking about weapons and government why E ? E talks about everything we don't know what everything constitutes.

CEdward · Answer

A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all know that Y is a closed society. So Y's government must have known about the weapons.

Which of the following is an assumption that would make the conclusion above logically correct?

(A) If a government knows about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes.
No…negating this reveals the argument works just fine. We don’t need to assume that the government INTENDED to use the weapons for ITS OWN PURPOSES to draw the conclusion that the government must have known about the weapons.

(B) If a government claims that it knew nothing about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have known everything about it.
No…not an assumption

(C) If a government does not permit weapons to enter a country, it is a closed society.
No…not an assumption.

(D) If a country is a closed society, its government has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders.
No…not an assumption.

(E) If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country.
Correct. Suppose the government didn’t know everything that occurs in its closed society, then in that case the conclusion that they MUST HAVE KNOWN about the weapons can fail.

BLTN · Answer

Cause and Effect

... We all know that Y is a closed society. So Y's government must have known about the weapons.
Hence,

Closed society - > Government must know.

(E) If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country - restates the Cause and Effect. IF Closed society - > Government must know.

stackskillz · Answer

Conc : So Y's government must have known about the weapons.

(A)  If a government knows about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have intended to use the weapons for its own purposes  - Looks like a controversial opinion. Whether verifed as true or not, this doesn't support the conclusion that Y's govt. must have known abou the weapons.  Drop

(B)  If a government claims that it knew nothing about a particular weapons-smuggling incident, it must have known everything about it.  There's no mention of Y denying the existence of the weapon. Therefore, this answer doesn't seem relevant to the passage.  Drop

(C)  If a government does not permit weapons to enter a country, it is a closed society.  Probably the wrong conclusion, we can have open societies not permitting weapons into the country. Either way this wouldn't impact the conclusion stated, i.e. Y's govt. must have known.   Drop

(D)  If a country is a closed society, its government has a large contingent of armed guards patrolling its borders.  Probably, but not necessary assumption.  Drop

(E)  If a country is a closed society, its government has knowledge about everything that occurs in the country.  This fills the gap in explanation correctly. Since, a closed society knows everything within it's borders, Y's govt. must have known about the weapon smuggling incident.  Keep

Nsp10 · Answer

though it is sub 505 but option D and E are very close, 
often while finding for Assumption find the conclusion first, 
Negation of E is weakening the Conclusion hence E

kashvitaunk · Answer

Why not C.

We know it???s a closed society and we know the weapons were smuggled.

Now c says if a govt doesn???t permit it???s a closed society. So can???t we derive that the govt did permit it.?

DmitryFarber · Answer

The problem here is that we don't really know what it means to be a "closed society" in this context, and a GMAT question wouldn't expect us to bring in any outside knowledge on that issue. The only reason this question works is that E fills in the precise gap. The premise says Y is a closed society, and the conclusion says the government must have known. But why? How do we know that when something happens in a closed society, the government knows? E tells us that this is just how it is--in a closed society, the government knows all. In that case, the conclusion must be true!

C is talking about something really different. It's starting with the idea that a country DID NOT PERMIT weapons. We don't know whether this country or any other did not permit weapons. From there, it's saying that such a society is closed. But we already know Y is closed! An answer that uses something we DON'T know to try to prove something we ALREADY know is of no use to us.

In any case, I don't think we'd see an argument of this type on the GMAT. It doesn't tend to show us arguments that rely on broad, absolute, unrealistic pronouncements of this type. (After all, no government knows EVERYTHING! Even what I dreamed about last night? Even the number of hairs on my head? Surely not . . .)

A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A weapons-smuggling incident recently took place in country Y. We all

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards