GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Aug 2018, 22:17

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

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

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2018
Posts: 53
GMAT 1: 600 Q40 V33

Show Tags

04 Feb 2018, 14:45
GMATNinja wrote:
GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Is not the second sentence an example of premise (mentioned in first sentence) ?
I faltered at identifying main conclusion here.

The first sentence describes the theory, and that is our given information. Remember, that this is just a theory, and we don't know whether this theory actually APPLIES to every country. For example, Country A might tell Country B that B is not allowed to sell any of its delicious fruit to Country A. According to the trade retaliation theory, Country B should retaliate by saying that Country A is not allowed to sell some of A's stuff in Country B. But Country B could easily decide NOT to act in accordance with that theory. They might be just as happy selling their fruit domestically or to other countries besides A, so B might not decide NOT to retaliate.

The author then says, "Well, imagine that EVERY country DID act according to the retaliation theory. In that case, no country would trade with any other." So the theory itself represents given information. The author then introduces a hypothetical situation ("well, what if EVERY country retaliates?"). The author concludes that in this hypothetical situation, no country would trade with any other. Countries would continue to retaliate until all trade was gone.

The second sentence is indeed the conclusion, but this conclusion is only valid IF we make the assumption in choice (D). It's a bit like the domino effect... if the first domino is still standing, then none of them will fall. If there are two countries that have NOT closed any markets to each other, then there would be no need to retaliate. Those countries might have firm policies to adhere to the retaliation theory, but if they are never given a REASON to act on that theory, then there will be no need to actually retaliate. The first domino is never tipped, so the countries continue trading.

I hope that helps!

Sorry, Need some further explanation. So, is the market retaliation theory not a premise? what is it then? Also, can you please explain why "A" is not correct?

the conclusion is "if countries act like this ..no country ..." rests on the fact that countries are actually following this theory.
(A) seemed tempting but now i see that if i negate A "some countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." doesnt actually do anything to the conclusion. what if option A "ALL countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." ? would (A) be correct then?

==================

so, first sentence IS the premise and what autor says is the conclusion. But that will be true only if some country has already closed something, if they havent then the cycle doesnt begin. Is my understanding correct? also, i still can't go past (A), please explain that.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 286

Show Tags

06 Feb 2018, 20:12
krish76 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Is not the second sentence an example of premise (mentioned in first sentence) ?
I faltered at identifying main conclusion here.

The first sentence describes the theory, and that is our given information. Remember, that this is just a theory, and we don't know whether this theory actually APPLIES to every country. For example, Country A might tell Country B that B is not allowed to sell any of its delicious fruit to Country A. According to the trade retaliation theory, Country B should retaliate by saying that Country A is not allowed to sell some of A's stuff in Country B. But Country B could easily decide NOT to act in accordance with that theory. They might be just as happy selling their fruit domestically or to other countries besides A, so B might not decide NOT to retaliate.

The author then says, "Well, imagine that EVERY country DID act according to the retaliation theory. In that case, no country would trade with any other." So the theory itself represents given information. The author then introduces a hypothetical situation ("well, what if EVERY country retaliates?"). The author concludes that in this hypothetical situation, no country would trade with any other. Countries would continue to retaliate until all trade was gone.

The second sentence is indeed the conclusion, but this conclusion is only valid IF we make the assumption in choice (D). It's a bit like the domino effect... if the first domino is still standing, then none of them will fall. If there are two countries that have NOT closed any markets to each other, then there would be no need to retaliate. Those countries might have firm policies to adhere to the retaliation theory, but if they are never given a REASON to act on that theory, then there will be no need to actually retaliate. The first domino is never tipped, so the countries continue trading.

I hope that helps!

Sorry, Need some further explanation. So, is the market retaliation theory not a premise? what is it then? Also, can you please explain why "A" is not correct?

the conclusion is "if countries act like this ..no country ..." rests on the fact that countries are actually following this theory.
(A) seemed tempting but now i see that if i negate A "some countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." doesnt actually do anything to the conclusion. what if option A "ALL countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." ? would (A) be correct then?

==================

so, first sentence IS the premise and what autor says is the conclusion. But that will be true only if some country has already closed something, if they havent then the cycle doesnt begin. Is my understanding correct? also, i still can't go past (A), please explain that.

Exactly! For any pair of countries, the cycle will only begin IF one country closes some market to the other.

Quote:
(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.

As for choice (A), I think you are on the right track. The author is posing a hypothetical situation: What if EVERY country acts according to that theory? The author doesn't care about who ACTUALLY acts according to that theory.

Consider the following example:

Scientist: "If every person in the world were to become a vegetarian, greenhouse gas emissions would decrease by 25%"
Critic: "Yea, but not everyone in the world is a vegetarian, so you're wrong."
Scientist: "I know that. I said, 'IF every person in the world were to become vegetarian...'"

The scientist doesn't care whether all, some, or none of the people are currently vegetarian. Similarly, the Commentator doesn't care whether all, some, or none of the countries actually act according to the theory.

Let us know if you still have questions!
_________________
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 39

Show Tags

07 Feb 2018, 04:50
krish76 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

Is not the second sentence an example of premise (mentioned in first sentence) ?
I faltered at identifying main conclusion here.

The first sentence describes the theory, and that is our given information. Remember, that this is just a theory, and we don't know whether this theory actually APPLIES to every country. For example, Country A might tell Country B that B is not allowed to sell any of its delicious fruit to Country A. According to the trade retaliation theory, Country B should retaliate by saying that Country A is not allowed to sell some of A's stuff in Country B. But Country B could easily decide NOT to act in accordance with that theory. They might be just as happy selling their fruit domestically or to other countries besides A, so B might not decide NOT to retaliate.

The author then says, "Well, imagine that EVERY country DID act according to the retaliation theory. In that case, no country would trade with any other." So the theory itself represents given information. The author then introduces a hypothetical situation ("well, what if EVERY country retaliates?"). The author concludes that in this hypothetical situation, no country would trade with any other. Countries would continue to retaliate until all trade was gone.

The second sentence is indeed the conclusion, but this conclusion is only valid IF we make the assumption in choice (D). It's a bit like the domino effect... if the first domino is still standing, then none of them will fall. If there are two countries that have NOT closed any markets to each other, then there would be no need to retaliate. Those countries might have firm policies to adhere to the retaliation theory, but if they are never given a REASON to act on that theory, then there will be no need to actually retaliate. The first domino is never tipped, so the countries continue trading.

I hope that helps!

Sorry, Need some further explanation. So, is the market retaliation theory not a premise? what is it then? Also, can you please explain why "A" is not correct?

the conclusion is "if countries act like this ..no country ..." rests on the fact that countries are actually following this theory.
(A) seemed tempting but now i see that if i negate A "some countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." doesnt actually do anything to the conclusion. what if option A "ALL countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation." ? would (A) be correct then?

==================

so, first sentence IS the premise and what autor says is the conclusion. But that will be true only if some country has already closed something, if they havent then the cycle doesnt begin. Is my understanding correct? also, i still can't go past (A), please explain that.

Hi krish76

The answer to your question, i.e. whether the altered version of choice A - ALL countries actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation. - is correct, is NO. In fact, you kind of answered this question in your post itself. Let me quote the relevant portion from your query:

the conclusion is "if countries act like this ..no country ..." rests on the fact that countries are actually following this theory.

As you can see, in your understanding you have clearly mentioned that the conclusion is valid only if we factor in the condition that "if every country acted on the mentioned theory". In other words, the conclusion talks about a hypothetical outcome in which the condition that all countries act/every country acts as per the theory has already been met. So, the altered version of Choice A, in which you have emphasized on "ALL" does not really make a difference because the mentioned condition in the conclusion already takes the "ALL" in to account. Think about it this way, if you say "Every student took the test.", it is the same as saying " All students took the test". Right? So, what new information will the altered version of choice A offer (ignoring the "actually acts part" for the moment)? Nothing, right?

However, choice A (irrespective of all/some) is mostly irrelevant because it talks about an actual/real case scenario, whereas the conclusion deals with a hypothetical one.

Hope the above analysis helps.

Cheers!

NS
Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2018
Posts: 53
GMAT 1: 600 Q40 V33

Show Tags

07 Feb 2018, 19:42
Thank you, Yes it is clear now. the trick is that the statement although a premise is still a hypothetical situation and probably most important part of this question is to realize that
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 39

Show Tags

07 Feb 2018, 22:19
krish76 wrote:
Thank you, Yes it is clear now. the trick is that the statement although a premise is still a hypothetical situation and probably most important part of this question is to realize that

Cheers!

NS
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that &nbs [#permalink] 07 Feb 2018, 22:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 45 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.