China wants to avoid financial collapse of their economy. In order to

Yes. But it says that if 33% is reached, then 50% would be possible or in other words attainable. We are not saying that without reaching 50% the economy would fall rather we are saying that if there is not a possibility to reach 50% then the economy would fall.

Maverick - What's the answer? I think it should be C

vdadwal - why would C is stronger than B? both use the same tone / language right?

B. China's GNP will not have a 50% increase, if its economy falls. // correct
C. The economy of China will not fall, if it can obtain an increased GNP of 50%. // this is too strong a statement , we don't know this for sure.

here is why I think it's gotta be C

Statments Says 33% is necessary for for China to avoid financial collapse and 50% is sufficient for China to avoid financial collapse
so C says China can get to 50% increase then I wil def avoid the collapse!

Option B -> Even if china doesn't increase by 50% but had it increased to 33% its economy will sustain!

what say?

there is situation in the stem that allows them to get 33% also right with out reaching 50% (Question reads - if the 33% increase in GNP is reached, than it is possible for a 50% GNP increase.)? then why would they fail?

nightblade354

Please mark the OA as A for this one.
Sorry to bug you bro!

China wants to avoid financial collapse of their economy. In order to do this, China must raise their gross national product rate by 33%. China's economy is structured so that if the 33% increase in GNP is reached, than it is possible for a 50% GNP increase.

Of the following statements listed below, which one must be true if we are to assume the above statements are also true?

A. China's economy will fall, if China's 50% increase in GNP is unattainable. // this is not what the author means
B. China's GNP will not have a 50% increase, if its economy falls. // correct
C. The economy of China will not fall, if it can obtain an increased GNP of 50%. // this is too strong a statement , we don't know this for sure.
D. A 17% GNP increase will be unattainable, if China continues to suffer national conflict. // out of context
E. A 71% increase is possible, if the 33% brink is achieved, and the 50% GNP increase is attainable. // out of context

Hi please correct me If I'm wrong, the conclusion says "if the 33% increase in GNP is reached, than it is possible for a 50% GNP increase.)"

The word possible makes the "if then" relationship not absolute for us to apply If x then Y -> Y not -> X NOT logic ?

Nice explaination MacFauz.
Thanks!!

Hi

Can anyone shed some light on this question as OA is not posted............the intent of the member who posted seems to be A as the answer.

But i cannot understand why it is A and C both seems to be same and justified byt the argument.

Its straight cause and effect.
Cause:- Help GNP to reach 33% , it will reach to 50% automatically
Effect:- Financial collapse can be avoided.

Question is a mUst be true type.
Clear that A and C are contender.

A. China's economy will fall, if China's 50% increase in GNP is unattainable.
C. The economy of China will not fall, if it can obtain an increased GNP of 50%.
Really difficult to eliminate both ...I do not think that we can present a thought that there may be other contributors to fall of the economy and hence reject C.

In the passage it is said, reaching 33% is must to avoid the fall. But it is nowhere mentioned, it is the only condition. So it mandatory but not sufficient. So reverse may not be true.

No Fall "Requires" Reaching 33 %
But Reaching 33% "does not imply" no fall.

The question tests the difference between necessary and sufficient condition. Macfauz is absolutely correct in his explanation.

I was asked for help via a private message.

This question is truly abysmal. Imagine a donkey on rollerskates trying to play a Chopin Etude --- that is the level of colossal failure which this question achieves.
Flaw #1: poor, unclear wording --- e.g. are we discussing the GNP or the GNP rate? The percentage changes are over what period?
Flaw #2: the GMAT almost never mentioned numerical information in the CR --- here, at least, it would seem no calculations are needed. Calculations are never needed on the GMAT CR, and are always characteristic of poor quality questions.
Flaw #3: Unrealistic content. In real life, China has the most robust economy in the world. There is absolutely no realistic question of a financial collapse in China. When the GMAT CR mentions anything real-world oriented, everything they say and imply is deeply consistent with the facts of the real-world situation.
Here's a MGMAT post in which they discuss more flaws of this question:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/inf ... 16786.html

My respect to MacFauz who, despite the exceedingly poor quality of the question, had something intelligent to say, as he typically does.

Overall, I would say: notice that some of the longest threads and most convoluted arguments are about questions so poor in quality that they are really not worth a second look. Find high quality questions, and all these extraneous confusions disappear.

That's my 2¢.

Mike

It should be C.

The reason "A" is not correct is that the stem specifically states that in order to avoid collapse China must raise GNP by 33% (a necessary condition), but once it reaches 33% there are CHANCES that 50% can be attained. Now if we notice option A makes reaching 50% a necessary goal which is wrong.

Lets now check why "C" should be correct. If the GNP reaches 50% then it means it must have reached 33% before and as per my aforesaid statement reaching 33% is a necessary goal to avoid collapse; therefore, china will 100% avoid collapse.

I hope my understanding is correct chetan2u, please throw some light on the same.

IMO its A itself.
Because of the following reasoning.
1--- No Fin Collapse ---> Inc GNP(33%)
2 --- Inc GNP(33%) ----> 50% Inc Possible.

A states
50% Inc NOT possible ---> NO inc GNP(33%)
No Inc GNP(33%) ---> Fin Collapse . Same thing. Contra positive.

Hence, A is right.
I think this question should be 600-700 instead of sub 600 .

It is possible to reach 50% GNP increase if 33% increase in gnp is reached, but it is not mentioned that 50% will certainly be reached. Hence, it might be possible that 33% is achieved but not 50%, in this case, how the choice A is correct?

I chose C as well but in retrospect, here is the pattern I see. For Must be True types, in the stimulus, the patter is if A-->then B , the answer choice must be Not B ---> Not A.

So, in the given stimulus, we (or at least I) can vaguely discern the pattern as below:

Avoid collapse >> If 33% reached (or 50% GNP is possible, when 33% is achieved)
(A) (B)

Now, option A can be vaguely patterned like below:

If China's 50% increase in GNP is unattainable, China's economy will fall

(Pattern)

Not B >>> Not A

Those are my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

All good, you're doing what should be done, haha. OA updated

In my opinion, A is more correct than others. Because the premise in this questions is that whether China could achieve an 33% Increase in GNP to prevent its economy from collapsing, and if the 33% increase is achievable, the 50% increase also is achievable because China has a structural economy. The premise in Option B is the outcome of the collapse in Chinese economy, and it supports the claim that China will not able to increase its GNP as a result; However, whether China could raise the GNP not depends on whether the economy will collapse in China; Instead, whether the economy will collapse is dependent on whether China could raise the GNP.