Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State

I am not sure you understand what import quota is. If you do, then I don't really understand your question. I will explain what import quota is. You can follow up if it doesn't help.

Country X has machine tool industry which manufactures say 5 million units of tools. Say another 2 million tools are imported (say, at a cheaper price).
And together, they take care of the country's defense needs (to make weapons etc).

Since the imported tools are cheaper, the industries needing those tools are preferring to import more and more.
An import quota is a restriction on how much can be imported. The machine tools industry, say wants the quota to be at 2 million units. They want that the country should not be allowed to import more than 2 million units. To fulfil the country's requirement, the country should buy from its own machine tool industry. The machine tool industry feels that if more units are imported, their existing manufacturing base will shrink, their people will lose jobs etc.
Now the govt didn't pay heed to the machine tool industry's demand for a quota. So the machine tool industry brought in the defence angle to coax the govt: during war, imports may not be possible or too expensive - you need to manufacture your supplies within your borders so don't let us shrink.

Now the defence dept is also saying the same thing - have import quotas. Don't import more than the limit allowed by the quota. Don't let our machine tool industry base shrink. If we get into a war, we need enough capacity to be able to manage without importing (if need be).

The question is how come machine tool industry came up with the defence angle first?
Answer: Because other angles (people losing jobs etc) did not work.

VeritasKarishma

how to tackle this type of question if someone doesn't now about import quotas or any info which someone don't now about

(A) When the aircraft industries retooled, they provided a large amount of work for tool builders. - the passage is not concerned with ''tool builders'' in any way.

(B) The Defense Department is only marginally concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the machine-tool industry. - the petition of the machine-tool industry was not focused on ''marginal concern'' of the Defense department.

(C) The machine-tool industry encountered difficulty in obtaining governmental protection against imports on grounds other than defense. - Even before the defense department made any public statement regarding the import quota issue, the machine-tool industry already filed a petition against the import quota. This would imply that the industry did have an agenda to seek a favorable response that would protect the industry from ''imports''. This though is closely aligned with (C). Hence, (C) is the right answer choice.

(D) A few weapons important for defense consist of parts that do not require extensive machining. - ''extensive machining'' is not implied or mentioned in the passage.

(E) Several federal government programs have been designed which will enable domestic machine-tool manufacturing firms to compete successfully with foreign toolmakers. - this encourages the machine-tool industry to stay put and not act (since the conditions suggested in (E) would already provide a favorable environment for the machine-tool industry); (E) does explain why the industry took the steps it had taken.

It is recommended to have a working knowledge of common terminology used in economics, law, politics etc. Though GMAT questions do not expect you to bring in any outside knowledge, it is fair to expect that the test taker reads some daily newspaper. If you don't know a term, you might need to extract its meaning from context but it could take time or leave you confused. The only logical course of action in that case would be to guess and move on instead of wasting time.

OFFICIAL GMAT EXPLANATION

Since the size of the machine-tool manufacturing base presumably has implications in the areas beyond national security, one might find it surprising that the industry raised the security issue in its petition. Choice C, the best answer, explains that the industry turned to this issue because others tended to be ineffective in efforts to obtain governmental protection.

Choices A and B, on the other hand, merely explain why the industry might not raise the security issue. Choice A suggests that the industry might have raised the issue of jobs instead. Choice B suggests that the part of the government concerned with security is not concerned enough with the industry’s import problem to take action. Neither D nor E is relevant to the industry’s choice of strategy for securing import quotas.

GMATNinja Could you please help me break down and understand the premise in this question?

A usual SC strategy is to eliminate the fluff and look at the core sentence. Sometimes we need to do something similar in CR too - eliminate the irrelevant information and focus on basics.

Let us understand the question.
This is a paradox/'explain why' question.
In simple words, the question is "Why did the machine tool industry raise the issue of national security when it petitioned for import quotas?"

The relevant information in the passage is this:
"the machine-tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas"

What the Defense Dept said or did happened LATER. The industry's petition came earlier. Let us ignore the Defense Department.

The facts are:
- the MT industry petitioned for import quotas
- it used national security as justification for its quota request

(A digression now)
Here is some background knowledge: An import quota puts an upper limit on imports and thus helps domestic producers

Import quotas are sort of frowned upon. The WTO etc discourage them.
Some reasons a govt would still impose import quotas:
- to protect local jobs
- to help local industry to grow and thus to help economic growth
- for reasons of national security, as in this case
- to protect local consumers against substandard or dangerous imports
- there must be other reasons too

(Back to the question now)
The MT industry asked for quotas and gave national security as a reason.

Why? Could it be because the MT manufacturers are patriotic and concerned for national security? (Could be! But ha ha ha)

Let's look at the answer choices now.

Remember, the question is 'When the industry asked for import quotas, why did it give national security as the reason?"

(A) When the aircraft industries retooled, they provided a large amount of work for tool builders.

- irrelevant
- does not answer the question

(B) The Defense Department is only marginally concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the machine-tool industry.

- tempting
- but it does not tell us clearly why the MT industry used national security to justify its request for quotas
- anyway, the Defense Department is not responsible for the imposition of quotas

(C) The machine-tool industry encountered difficulty in obtaining governmental protection against imports on grounds other than defense.

- bingo, perfect

(D) A few weapons important for defense consist of parts that do not require extensive machining.

- irrelevant
- if anything, this might weaken the industry's argument

(E) Several federal government programs have been designed which will enable domestic machine-tool manufacturing firms to compete successfully with foreign toolmakers.

- irrelevant
- does not answer the question

Posted from my mobile device

Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United States to wage a prolonged war would be seriously endangered if the machine-tool manufacturing base shrinks further.
Analysts of the Defense Department are worried about something.

Worried about what?

They worry that if the machine-tool manufacturing base shrinks further, America’s ability to wage a prolonged war would be seriously endangered.

If condition: “if the machine-tool manufacturing base shrinks further”.
So, the base has already shrunk. The analysts are worried about what would happen if the base shrinks further.

Consequence: It would become very difficult for America to wage an extended war.

Before the Defense Department publicly connected this security issue with the import quota issue, however, the machine-tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas.

“this security issue”: I gather that if a country’s ability to wage a prolonged war is endangered, its security is weakened. So, if the machine-tool manufacturing base shrinks further, that would be a security threat

Alright, I get the security issue.

“import quota issue”: (Why are they suddenly discussing import quotas? I’ll need to read the complete statement to understand this.)

After reading the statement, I understand that we’re given two pieces of information here:

1. The Defense Department publicly connected this manufacturing-base shrinkage issue with import quotas.

(How would the department have connected these two issues?
I needed to relate this statement to the previous one to understand that. Probably the size of the machine-tool manufacturing base is linked to import quotas.
How would those be linked?
The more relaxed import quotas are, the further the manufacturing base would shrink.
That’s how the Defense Department would have been able to connect the security issue with import quotas.)

2. Even before the Defense Department declared this connection,
a. The machine-tool industry had filed a petition for import quotas
b. And, in its petition, it had raised the national security issue

(Why would the machine-tool industry have filed a petition for import quotas? To reduce their competition, I would imagine.
Why would the machine-tool industry have raised the national security issue? Probably to somehow support their petition.)

There is a ‘however’ in the statement. This statement contrasts with the previous one. The DD analysts worry about something. But they are not the only ones to worry about it.

The story might have been something like this:
August 2022: The Defense Department releases a statement saying that relaxed import quotas are negatively impacting the country’s ability to wage a prolonged war.

January 2022: The machine-tool industry had filed a petition to implement stricter import quotas. In that petition, they had mentioned that the relaxed import quotas are also a security threat to the country.

Gist:
I imagine this is what would have transpired:

Machine-tool industry’s petition:

Dear government people,

1. Please make import quotas more stringent.
2. If you don’t make import quotas more stringent, our manufacturing base will shrink further.
3. If our manufacturing base shrinks further, America’s ability to wage a prolonged war will be seriously impacted. After all, during a war you’d not be able to import as easily, and you’d need to rely on us.
4. So, you see, making import quotas is in both our interests.

Yours sincerely,
Machine-tool industry people
Date: Jan, 2022




Which of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the machine-tool industry’s raising the issue above regarding national security?

Framework: The machine-tool industry was able to include the import-quota issue in their petition even before the connection between import quotas and national security was revealed to the public by the Defense Department. We need to look for an answer choice that will help us understand how this could happen.

A few of things to note:

1. “if true”: Our job is not to evaluate the option’s validity. We have to accept the answer choices as true and then check whether they contribute to an explanation.
2. “contributes”: The correct answer need not completely explain the industry’s raising the issue. We’re looking for an answer choice that contributes to an explanation.
3. “contributes most”: The term ‘most’ implies that multiple answer choices would contribute, but we have to choose one that contributes the most. In my experience, typically in such questions, four answer choices do not help at all, and only one (the correct answer) does. That’s what I recommend as a strategy for such questions as well:

a. Evaluate each answer choice independently to check whether it contributes at all.
b. If, by chance, multiple choices do, then check which one helps more. (Based on my experience, you’d rarely need to perform this second check.)

(A) When the aircraft industries retooled, they provided a large amount of work for tool builders.
Incorrect.
So what? I do not see any relation between the aircraft industries providing large amount of work for tool builders and the issue at hand. Irrelevant.

(B) The Defense Department is only marginally concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the machine-tool industry.
Incorrect.
‘foreign competition’ – that relates to imports and import quotas.

Whom would the machine-tool industry people have petitioned to?
Would they have petitioned the Defense Department?
Unlikely.
The machine-tool industry’s petition for import quotas would have probably gone to the Department of Commerce, Department of Imports quotas, or something like that. The Defense Department’s job is to defend the country. Probably they won’t handle petitions for quotas on imports.

To understand where I’m going with this, here is a variation of this option:

(B’) The Department of Import quotas is only marginally concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the machine-tool industry.

This variation mildly contributes to an explanation of the machine-tool industry’s raising the national security issue.

The relevant department did not really care about the effects of import quotas on the machine-tool industry. So, pleas such as:

• “If you don’t implement import quotas, we will have to fire 50% of the workforce”
• “If you don’t implement import quotas, our industry will not be able to survive for much longer”
  would have fallen on deaf ears.

Had the industry people claimed:

• “If you don’t implement import quotas, our nation’s security will be threatened.”
  maybe the department would have listened.

So maybe this lack of concern of the department led the industry people to raise an issue about national security.

Back to the original answer choice now.

The Defense Department’s job would be to handle national security. So anyway we wouldn’t expect them to be concerned with the impact of foreign quotas on the machine-tool industry. The machine-tool industry would care what the Department of Import quotas is concerned with, not what the Defense Department is concerned with.

(C) The machine-tool industry encountered difficulty in obtaining governmental protection against imports on grounds other than defense.
Correct.
Based on this answer choice, the machine-tool industry people probably had the following discussion (in December 2021):

Guys, we have tried everything.
We have been giving various reasons to obtain governmental protection against imports.
None of them has worked.
All grounds except for defense haven’t worked.
Maybe defense will work.
Let’s try that.
Let’s add a national defense angle in our next plea.

This answer choice helps explain how come the machine-tool industry brought in the national security angle in their import quotas petition even before the Defense Department had publicly linked the two things.

Now, this answer choice does not give a rock-solid explanation for the mention of national security in the petition. It does, however, contribute to such an explanation. As I have explained above, that’s all we’re looking for.

(D) A few weapons important for defense consist of parts that do not require extensive machining.
Incorrect.
Some important weapons don’t require extensive tooling. In that case, perhaps the Defense Department analysts need not be that worried about the shrinkage of the machine-tool manufacturing base. If the shrinking of the machine-tool industry is not that big a deal for defense, why would the industry people bring in the national security angle in their petition? This answer choice goes in the opposite direction of what we are looking for.

(E) Several federal government programs have been designed which will enable domestic machine-tool manufacturing firms to compete successfully with foreign toolmakers.
Incorrect.
It seems that the government is already helping the machine-tool industry against imports. Then why would the industry bring in national security in their petition for import quotas? I don’t see how that would help their petition.

The main point is that if the machine-tool manufacturing companies in the US go belly up as a result of competition from foreign firms then the US will be unable to keep its war going for a very long time - an unfavorable outcome.

Hence, the machine-tool manufacturing companies in the US must be protected in order to fuel wars.

To protect local companies, the American government should block buying products made in foreign countries. This is the essence of import quota.

Sequence of events:

The issue of national security was raised by the machine-tool manufacturing industry first and by the defense industry second.

Now, why was the issue of national security raised by the machine-tool companies in the US?

Let's analyze one option at a time.

A is gone because the passage tells us only about the defense department and the tool industry. Aircraft industry was never discussed.

B is gone because if the defense department does not care about the machine-tool manufacturing industry - the backbone of American wars - then the department would not have tied the import quota issue with the national security issue in the first place.

C is right because it says that in the past, the machine-tool manufacturing companies in the US attempted to seek protection against foreign competitors.
Nonetheless, no protection was provided by the government.
Thus, the helpless machine-tool manufacturing companies in the US cited the national security issue as a premise for protection against foreign competitors, hoping for a favorable response.
Basically, the companies said that the government must guard them in order to oil the jaws of war-machines.

Let's dissect D.
Are the parts imported? We don't know!
Moreover, the issue of parts requiring machining is irrelevant.
What's relevant is that the American companies must be protected against foreign competitors if the war needs to be extended.
Cancel D.

If American firms will be able to compete against foreign firms then why did the machine-tool industry raise the national security issue in its petition for import quotas?
It's illogical.
Cancel E.

C is the answer!

I hope this clarifies.

Posted from my mobile device