Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
27 Sep 2019, 02:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (02:25) correct
40%
(02:40)
wrong
based on 1189
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
15 Oct 2019, 20:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
We are supposed to counter the claim with our assumption:-
(A) Foreign companies did benefit when Country X lowered tariff barriers, but consumers in Country X benefited just as much.
--> Though it is a possibility, but it doesn't counter the claim that Foreign companies induced the change.
(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.
-->It talks about profit of importers not of foreign companies. Low tariff doesn't necessarily means high imports
(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.
-->out of scope
(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.
--> changes doesn't affect competition.
(E) Although foreign companies benefited when Country X lowered tariff barriers, there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change.
-->Here, it is clearly stated that there is no evidence that foreign companies induced the change, while accepting that companies gained from the change.
(A) Foreign companies did benefit when Country X lowered tariff barriers, but consumers in Country X benefited just as much.
--> Though it is a possibility, but it doesn't counter the claim that Foreign companies induced the change.
(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.
-->It talks about profit of importers not of foreign companies. Low tariff doesn't necessarily means high imports
(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.
-->out of scope
(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.
--> changes doesn't affect competition.
(E) Although foreign companies benefited when Country X lowered tariff barriers, there is no other evidence that these foreign companies induced the change.
-->Here, it is clearly stated that there is no evidence that foreign companies induced the change, while accepting that companies gained from the change.
22 Apr 2023, 04:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Different kind of question.
The part "logically serve as a premise" in the Question stem is the key. It is asking for an Assumption, coz that's what an assumption is - an unstated premise.
The next important part is to understand is that the Question wants us to find an assumption that uses the Principle to counter the claim.
Now, the crux of the principle is the 'how' part of it. We need an option that addresses the 'how' part of the principle. But since we need to counter the claim, we need an option that addresses the lack of the 'how' part.
Only Option E does that.
Hope it makes sense..
5 min. Among the toughest i know.
