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

It is currently 22 Sep 2018, 00:26

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

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1739
Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 30 Aug 2018, 21:29
14
40
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:05) correct 28% (01:21) wrong based on 3142 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?


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

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.

Originally posted by Bhai on 10 Jul 2004, 19:40.
Last edited by Bunuel on 30 Aug 2018, 21:29, edited 5 times in total.
Renamed the topic.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Florida
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2004, 20:58
2
2
I will try. my answer D.
Commentator's point is forwaded by the last statement, first if simply the theory. If a country follow the theory, it won't be able to trade (last sentence, considering one given conuntry), which means some of its markets will always be closed to other countries. Choice "A" is like a premise to "D".

B, C and E are simply out of scope.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 250
Location: Hanoi
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2004, 21:09
1
I choose A.
The conclusion here "If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other" simply rejects "the theory of trade retaliation". So the author must assume A. Rewrite:

The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. But in reality,no country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation. If they does, no country would trade with any other.
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4217
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jul 2004, 23:11
1
1
D it is. 1.5 min
Let's negate it. If all countries have all of their markets open to each other, then there would not even be a reason for the very existence of the theory of retaliation
A is an unwarranted assumption. Some countries may and others may not be practicing it.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4906
Location: Singapore
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2005, 00:36
1
1
Commentator:
1) Theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets.

2) If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other. <-- conclusion

We're asked to find an assumption which will make this conclusion true - that is, why following the theory of trade retaliation will result in no countries trading with each other

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
- Does this help us hold up the conclusion? No.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
- Not useful

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
- Out of scope

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
- If for any 2 countries, at least one has some market closed to the other, then it's true that all countries are not trading with each other if they closed their markets.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
- Not useful

D it is.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 439
Location: New York
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2005, 07:57
1
Going with D

Conclusion: No country would trade with each other.

Based on the passage, D has to be assumed, otherwise the conculusion is not true. If we assume that atleast 1 country does this, then the conclusion is true.

rahulraao wrote:
Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.
VP
VP
User avatar
S
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1485
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Mar 2013, 11:47
3
The stimulus is saying that a tit-for-tat approach will just render international trade meaningless because each country would close some other market in retaliation to the other country's decision to close some market. This process would then continue till all markets for each country are closed to all others, and no country would trade with any other.

For this to happen, each country must close at least one market to every other country to begin the chain. This is exactly what option D states and is therefore the right answer.
_________________

GyanOne | Top MBA Rankings and MBA Admissions Blog

Top MBA Admissions Consulting | Top MiM Admissions Consulting

Premium MBA Essay Review|Best MBA Interview Preparation|Exclusive GMAT coaching

Get a FREE Detailed MBA Profile Evaluation | Call us now +91 98998 31738

Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 841
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Dec 2013, 12:46
3
My 2 cents :)

Trade retaliation theory says that one country should close some of its markets in retaliation if other country is also closing some market ( as give in question )

Now Commentator arrives at conclusion that if every country followed this theory than no country would trade with each other.

Now Commentators point of view : Countries are not following this theory, if country A has closed some of its market for country B then as per the theory country B should also have closed some of its market, and in that case no one will be able to trade, but that is not the case country A has closed some of its market and B is not following this theory that is the reason they are able to trade with each other.

Therefore D is right. Commentator assumes that country A has some market closed for country B, but they are still trading, bcz they are not following trade retaliation theory, else they would not be trading.

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other. ( but these countries are still trading bcz they are not acting as per the theory)
now relate above assumption to " if every country followed this theory than no country would trade with each other."

Option A's scope is wide and vague, No country.

Give a deep thought for 5min at least, this question is a brain twister, and option A and D appear possible choices.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 583
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2016, 04:54
1
1
Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we can see option B,C & E are plain and simple irrelevant and useless.
THE REAL CONTENDERS ARE OPTON A & OPTION D

The argument says :-
If Japan blocks Indian sugar coming to their market, then India should block Japanese steel coming to India.
This will Pressurise Japan to open his market for Indian Sugar. (There are 2 possibilities, Either Japan will open its market or Japan will try to pressurise India by blocking India wheat, Then again two things may happen:- Either india will allow japanese steel or it will block Japanese seafood and so on and on and on..)
The argument then concludes that:-If every country acts like this, then no country will be able to trade with each other.
So it is clear that the argument believes that one ban will lead to another ban.
It does not believe that one ban will make the other country to open its ban.

In essence this argument tells us Cause (Japan Bans X)-->effect (India Bans y)-->cause (Japan Bans z)--->effect (India Bans a)--->cause (Japan bans b)--->effect (India ban c) and so on.. this is what is called a vicious cycle.

Notice that How the conclusion presents a situation that is expected to happen but NOT REALLY happens in real world.
Why is it not happening:- May be because No country has closed market to other country.
For example :- If japan bans indian sugar, India Bans japanese steel, Then japan bans Indian leather, then india bans japanese electronics. Then japan send his surplus electronics to britian and britain tries to save its home grown industry and bans Japanese electronics. Japan then bans British meat, Britain then bans japanese sea food. Meanwhile India sends his surplus leather to US, US bans it for child labor issues, then India in response bans MacDonalds and pepsi and cococola, then america bans Indian software.. and so on.. then this cycle keep on happening. And at the end of the day no country will be able to trade with other country

So the argument assumes that this will happen when atleast one of the country will close its market to another country.

Which options states this
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.

CORRECT ANSWER IS D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1193
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2018, 23:13
GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja

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

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2021
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2018, 20:23
1
1
adkikani 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!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Jan 2018
Posts: 57
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 600 Q40 V33
Reviews Badge
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2018, 14:45
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani 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?

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

Edited after rereading your explanation -

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
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 278
CAT Tests
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2018, 20:12
krish76 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani 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?

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

Edited after rereading your explanation -

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!
_________________

www.gmatninja.com

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 37
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2018, 04:50
krish76 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani 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?

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

Edited after rereading your explanation -

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
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Aug 2018
Posts: 2
CAT Tests
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2018, 14:08
Here is how I understood it. Tricky one, but understand the pattern here. The pattern is - if there is a HYPOTHETICAL statement mentioned in the stimulus supporting the conclusion, the assumption would be within this hypothetical statement.

The stimulus gave the explanation about a theory call TRADE RETALIATION in the first sentence. Then, there is a hypothesis that IF EVERY COUNTRY ACTED ACCORDING TO THIS THEORY, then the conclusion (something would happen).
Now, we need to find the assumption within this hypothesis for the conclusion to be true. The assumption is, for any 2 countries in consideration to act according to the trade retaliation theory, at least one has to close some market for the other, so the other country can retaliate with the same.

Here is my process of elimination on answer choices:

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country’s markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.

The commentator’s argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation. -- this is no where assumed by the Commentator. You can even try this with Negation technic.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade. -- This just seems to be good suggestion from the Commentator, but this need not be an assumption.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal. -- International tribunal?? The settlement process of trade disputes is out of scope

(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other. -- This is the assumption within the hypothetical statement in the stimulus.

(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers. -- reason for Countries closing of markets to foreigners is irrelevant.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong.

If you like it, please give a KUDOS!
Re: Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo &nbs [#permalink] 30 Aug 2018, 14:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries clo

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.