Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:00 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:00
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,081
 [32]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
27
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
ababab5
Joined: 18 Aug 2019
Last visit: 28 Oct 2023
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
6
 [2]
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 7
Kudos: 6
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Nielgmat
Joined: 08 Apr 2022
Last visit: 01 Apr 2024
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
140
 [1]
Given Kudos: 63
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 2.8
Products:
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Posts: 130
Kudos: 140
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
SunidhiM20
Joined: 11 Apr 2023
Last visit: 09 Oct 2023
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone please explain why E is the correct option?

Option E questions the how part which questions the principle and the not the claim.

Can someone help me in mitigating the gap in my understanding I am facing?
User avatar
Dooperman
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 321
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
Schools: ISB '27 Kellogg
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Schools: ISB '27 Kellogg
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 112
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Claim : government “wanted” to benefit the foreign companies.
Principal: Yes foreign companies benefitted as a result of the lower taxes. But how can you prove that foreign companies influenced the government’s decision.

Now, the principal argument counters the claim. As per the question statement, we have to select the option which can act as a premise in principal argument.

The second half of option E clearly mentions “there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change”. This bridges the gap in the principal argument.
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,721
Own Kudos:
2,258
 [1]
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,721
Kudos: 2,258
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SunidhiM20
Can someone please explain why E is the correct option?

Option E questions the how part which questions the principle and the not the claim.

Can someone help me in mitigating the gap in my understanding I am facing?
I don't know what kind of question is this but here's my explanation. I was blown away by the question stem itself. But i got answer correct, however, it took me infinite time :x 5 min. Among the toughest i know.

Quote:
Claim: Country X’s government lowered tariff barriers because doing so served the interests of powerful foreign companies.
Principle: In order for a change to be explained by the advantage some person or group gained from it, it must be shown how the interests of the person or group played a role in bringing about the change.

Which one of the following, if true, can most logically serve as a premise for an argument that uses the principle to counter the claim?

(A) Foreign companies did benefit when Country X lowered tariff barriers, but consumers in Country X benefited just as much. - WRONG. Interest of foreign companies is not visible here. This just shows they benefitted but that doesn't necessarily mean it was because these companies intended(by playing any role i.e. influencing the policymaking either directly or indirectly).

(B) In the period since tariff barriers were lowered, price competition among importers has severely limited importers’ profits from selling foreign companies’ products in Country X. - WRONG. Importer's profit/loss is irrelevant. Doesn't impacts the claim at all.

(C) It was impossible to predict how Country X’s economic reforms, which included lowering tariff barriers, would affect the economy in the short term. - WRONG. Plain irrelevant.

(D) Many of the foreign companies that benefited from Country X’s lowering tariff barriers compete fiercely among themselves both in Country X and in other markets. - WRONG. This is also nowhere and reasoning-wise it is similar to A. Intentions are not visible on foreign companies' part. Also, 'many', although it doesn't hold that much a weight in the decision making of eliminating this choice, is insignificant.

(E) Although foreign companies benefited when Country X lowered tariff barriers, there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change. - CORRECT. If they had induced the change then it shows their intention/s(interests) that would have supported the claim. This choice differs from choices A and D but it presents some evidence of their interests.


Simply put, question stem asks a premise that counters the claim(highlighted text). Problem is that principle is worded in such a manner that it can either counter or support the claim, depending on how it is worded. Here question stem seeks to counter the claim.

HTHs.
User avatar
Kratosgmat
Joined: 26 Sep 2022
Last visit: 07 Mar 2025
Posts: 91
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 44
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Other
GRE 1: Q164 V158
GRE 2: Q170 V163
GRE 1: Q164 V158
GRE 2: Q170 V163
Posts: 91
Kudos: 13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Claim : Country X’s government lowered tariff barriers because doing so served the interests of powerful foreign companies.
Principle : In order for a change to be explained by the advantage some person or group gained from it, it must be shown how the interests of the person or group played a role in bringing about the change.
Option E : Although foreign companies benefited when Country X lowered tariff barriers, there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change.

Explanation
As per option E, there is no evidence that foreign companies induced the change even though they benefitted from lowered Tariff.
So as per principle in order for a change to be explained by the advantage some person or group gained from it, it must be shown how the interests of the person or group played a role in bringing about the change. But as per E, we don’t have evidence of the BF part.
The second BF is a necessary condition to explain a change (lowering of tariff barriers) using the advantage some person or group gained (served the interests of powerful foreign companies).
Since we don’t have evidence of the necessary condition we can’t arrive at the claim. Thereby countering it.
User avatar
steffe440
Joined: 29 Dec 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 31
Location: Sweden
Posts: 18
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Understanding the argument:
The principle says there has to be evidence for the “Claim” to be true, that is evidence that the country's tariff change was affected by other powerful foreign countries.


(A) It is not comparing who benefited the most, or if there was something that was mutual.


(B) This is an observation of an effect we do not even know if it is due to lowered tariffs, it just happened to be in the same period. And it is not about profits.


(C) It is not about predicting the short term, nothing of that substance is said. The short term profit has no connection or bearing to if other countries affected the policy of the tariffs.


(D) Where they compete has no relevance, since it is about change and what affected the change.


(E) Negated: If there is other evidence that these foreigners induced change in the policy of the tariffs in country X, then it would hold true and it would not weaken the claim.


Bunuel
Claim: Country X’s government lowered tariff barriers because doing so served the interests of powerful foreign companies.
Principle: In order for a change to be explained by the advantage some person or group gained from it, it must be shown how the interests of the person or group played a role in bringing about the change.

Which one of the following, if true, can most logically serve as a premise for an argument that uses the principle to counter the claim?


(A) Foreign companies did benefit when Country X lowered tariff barriers, but consumers in Country X benefited just as much.

(B) In the period since tariff barriers were lowered, price competition among importers has severely limited importers’ profits from selling foreign companies’ products in Country X.

(C) It was impossible to predict how Country X’s economic reforms, which included lowering tariff barriers, would affect the economy in the short term.

(D) Many of the foreign companies that benefited from Country X’s lowering tariff barriers compete fiercely among themselves both in Country X and in other markets.

(E) Although foreign companies benefited when Country X lowered tariff barriers, there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts