Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:36 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:36
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
555-605 Level|   Resolve Paradox|                     
User avatar
Probus
User avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Last visit: 22 May 2020
Posts: 180
Own Kudos:
530
Given Kudos: 115
Location: United States (NC)
Posts: 180
Kudos: 530
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 18 Oct 2018, 01:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Probus
pqhai
targetgmatchotu
Can some expert pour in and explain please.

I am unable to get the stimulus itself,answering it is another step.

Plz Advise!

Rgds,
TGC !!

Hi TGC,

First of all, we need to understand the logic of quotas. The reason for setting import quotas is to protect internal industries from competition of foreign competitors.
There are two cases:
(1) No quotas: Internal industries will have difficulties because foreign competitors can sell products without any restrictions.
(2) Have quotas: Internal industries will NOT have difficulties because there are some limitations for foreign competitors.

This is resolve the paradox question, so what is paradox here? The paradox is: If there are import quotas, Machine Tool Industry (MTI) should be protected and will grow. But why MTI still maintains that the import quotas policies do not help?

The reason is:
Machine Tool Industry products = Defense products + Other products.

MTI will have difficulties if
(1) Sales of Defense products decline
(2) Sales of Other products decline
(3) Sale of both Defense products and Other products decline

In this question, MTI asks for help because the industry's sales of other products account for bigger portion of the industry's sales. BUT this segment does not have protection from government ==> MTI industry cannot grow ==> It will affect the ability of the United States to wage a prolonged war.

C says exactly the same reason. Hence, it is correct.

Hope my post helps you.

Hi
Hi chiranjeev,

Could you help me on validating my argument.

Dense 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 shrinksfurther.
( So Defense analyst (worry) predict that ability of US to wage long term war would be at risk if certain industries base shrinks further. A point to not here is the highlighted portion . Th industry is already growing small. Any further decrease from this point is a serous concern for Deference analyst)

Now to understand the argument further we need to understand the structure of the sentence . Before X, Y.
So Y happens first and then X happens.

X is : Before the Defense Department publicly connected this security issue with the import quota issue,

So defense dept connected this issue( ability of US to wage prolonged war at risk because of shrinking base of MTI) with import quota issue. ( that means currently there are not enough taxes levied or no taxes on the import of certain industry products )

and Y is : the machine-tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas

So the machine tool industries do want tariffs to be applied on imports of certain products ( may be machine tools)
and reasoned a national security issue to support the claim.

All in all the Defense dept and the small tool industry association are for import tariffs on machine toll industry products)

Many posts i have seen above are telling this is a paradox question. There is no paradox in the argument above. Both are for tariffs on imports . One reasons defense security angle and other reasons national security. Aren't both same.

Is national security not a defense security


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

Question asked to us is which of the following would help most ( maximum) in explaining why MTI rose the import quota issue regarding national security.

Where did i miss to understand the paradox. And what is the paradox in above argument. ( the post of @pqhai) mentions it as paradox, but i beg to disagree with him.

Requesting your valuable input

Thanks
Probus
Show more

Hi VeritasKarishma,

Can you please help me to understand how this is a paradox question. What part should i have read to get the ides that questions is asking to explain the paradox

Probus
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [2]
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 19 Oct 2018, 01:23
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Probus


Hi VeritasKarishma,

Can you please help me to understand how this is a paradox question. What part should i have read to get the ides that questions is asking to explain the paradox

Probus
Show more


Actually, there is no contradiction here. The situation is unexpected and you have to explain it. We don't have to explain why the Defence Department did not come up with the connection. We just have to explain how come the machine tool industry came up with the security concern issue.

The Defense Dep worries about issues of safety and security and the preparedness during possible war. So one would expect them to bring up the topic of "establishing an import quota" so that our manufacturing base does not shrink beyond acceptable. An import quota restricts imports and hence the manufacturing base needs to be maintained in the country to meet demand. The argument tells us that instead, the machine tool industry raised the issue of national security and requested to establish an import quota. The machine tool industry would suffer if there is no import quota since there would be indiscriminate imports and the manufacturing base in the country would shrink. So they want import quota. But it was surprising that they brought up the security concern issue instead of the usual loss of jobs, lower quality imports etc. That is what the question asks us to explain - Instead of the Defence Department bringing up this issue, how come the machine tool industry brought it up?
Option (C) tells us that the machine tool industry has tried lots of other reasons but the Govt has not paid heed. So then it makes sense, that out of desperation, they tried a valid concern which otherwise is someone else's job. But they tried to catch the Govt's attention by brining it up.
avatar
Rocknrolla21
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Last visit: 13 Aug 2021
Posts: 41
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 227
Schools: NUS '23
Schools: NUS '23
Posts: 41
Kudos: 7
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 10 Sep 2019, 13:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma,

I have a doubt, and hence haven't been able to understand the question fully.

The intended meaning is that Defense Department and Machine tool industry are both for import quotas for different reasons.

Defense Department is for the import quota because that will supplement their existing capacity.

Conversely, machine-tool industry is for import quotas because that will set a limit on the number of units that can be imported.

Does this mean the import quota didn't exist at all? Because if they were already importing, then Defense Department could also be advocating for increasing the limit assuming they are not prioritising profits of domestic machine-tool industry.

If this is the case, then I can't comprehend why exactly the machine tool industry raised the issue that it raised in its petition for import quotas.

Thank you!

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [1]
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 11 Sep 2019, 05:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rocknrolla21
Hi VeritasKarishma,

I have a doubt, and hence haven't been able to understand the question fully.

The intended meaning is that Defense Department and Machine tool industry are both for import quotas for different reasons.

Defense Department is for the import quota because that will supplement their existing capacity.

Conversely, machine-tool industry is for import quotas because that will set a limit on the number of units that can be imported.

Does this mean the import quota didn't exist at all? Because if they were already importing, then Defense Department could also be advocating for increasing the limit assuming they are not prioritising profits of domestic machine-tool industry.

If this is the case, then I can't comprehend why exactly the machine tool industry raised the issue that it raised in its petition for import quotas.

Thank you!

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

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.
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 10 Jun 2020, 12:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
avatar
jaisonsunny77
avatar
Joined: 05 Jan 2019
Last visit: 25 Aug 2021
Posts: 459
Own Kudos:
381
Given Kudos: 28
Posts: 459
Kudos: 381
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 10 Jun 2020, 18:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(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.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,986
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,986
 [2]
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 13 Jun 2020, 00:37
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saby1410
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
Show more

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.
User avatar
Hovkial
User avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Last visit: 24 Nov 2022
Posts: 803
Own Kudos:
2,409
Given Kudos: 202
Status:PhD trained. Education research, management.
Posts: 803
Kudos: 2,409
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 20 Oct 2020, 09:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
Bezzerk
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2020
Last visit: 13 Aug 2021
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 110
Posts: 6
Kudos: 1
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 30 Oct 2020, 04:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja Could you please help me break down and understand the premise in this question?
User avatar
vv65
User avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 534
Own Kudos:
395
 [1]
Given Kudos: 774
Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 534
Kudos: 395
 [1]
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 23 Nov 2020, 19:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
AnishPassi
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
661
 [3]
Given Kudos: 18
Status:GMAT Coach
Affiliations: The GMAT Co.
Concentration: Strategy
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: IIMA  (A)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41
Posts: 112
Kudos: 661
 [3]
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 30 Aug 2022, 02:58
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Story

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


Question Stem

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.)


Answer Choice Analysis

(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.
User avatar
steckcha
User avatar
Joined: 20 May 2017
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 63
Posts: 12
Kudos: 4
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 06 Sep 2023, 10:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,833
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,833
Kudos: 986
Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State 24 Sep 2025, 03:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts