Defense Department analysts worry that the ability of the United State

I'm not sure if this is why you're struggling with this question, but the chronology in the passage is a little bit funky. So let's start by breaking down the chronology.


In the first sentence we know that the Defense Department is worried because the machine-tool manufacturing base (that's a mouthful -- we'll call it the "industry" from here on out) has shrunk in the past. The beginning of the second sentence implies that the Defense Department has brought up the import quota issue because of the stuff in the first sentence. This gives us the following chronology so far:

1. the industry shrank
2. the Defense Department became worried
3. the Defense Department raised the import quota issue

So far, so good. The second half of the second sentence tells us that the industry did two things before the Defense Department raised the import quota issue (#3 above):

• the industry raised the national security issue (presumably the shrinking of the industry)
• the industry petitioned for import quotas

Now that we have that timeline clear, hopefully it'll be easier to answer the question of why the industry raised the national security issue!

So, which answer choice contributes most to an explanation of the machine-tool industry raising this issue?


Making sure that there are lots of jobs for tool builders is great, but does it help us understand why the industry raised the national security issue? Not really. This answer choice helps us understand why the industry might be seeking help from the government, but it doesn't help us understand why the industry specifically raised the national security issue. So we can eliminate answer choice (A).


If the Defense Department isn't particularly concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the industry, it would be odd for the industry to be particularly concerned with the national security effects. After all, it is it job of the Defense Department to be concerned with national security issues. So this doesn't help explain why the industry is raising the issue. We can eliminate answer choice (B).


The industry is petitioning for an import quota. It isn't hard to imagine why: if there's an import quota then there are fewer foreigner competitors that the industry has to compete with at home. Answer choice (C) implies that they unsuccessfully tried to petition for import quotas in the past on the basis of some other argument than national security. The argument itself implies the government became more interested in the national security issue once the industry raised the issue –- the Defense Department started paying attention! So answer choice (C) does a pretty good job of explaining why the industry raised the national security issue: other attempts to get governmental protection had failed! We'll leave answer choice (C) in.


Answer choice (D) would downplay the industry's national security argument. If there are weapons that don't require machining, then it isn't as big of a deal if the domestic industry continues to shrink. So this doesn't help explain why the industry raised the national security issue and we can eliminate answer choice (D).


If there are several programs that have been designed to help the industry, then this downplays the need for the industry's national security argument since they're already being helped by the government. So we can eliminate answer choice (E).

That leaves us with answer choice (C) as the only answer that helps explain why the industry raised the national security issue.

I hope that helps!

The second part of the second sentence (the machine-tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas) is important for arriving at option C.

The (domestic) machine tools industry wants the government to ban or hinder imports of machine tools so that the domestic industry flourishes. In order to support its petition (to persuade the government to hinder the imports), the industry has cited that national security may be compromised if machine tools are imported.

Option C explains why the industry did so.

Hi TGC.

The most important thing is the intended meaning of the stimulus, don't simply see signal words such as however, but, etc... and determine two sides of the paradox. In 700+ questions, many signal words are trap.. You should read the stimulus carefully to digest the intended meaning.

I will reorganize and rephrase some parts of the stimulus.

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. [So Government set the import quotas policies to support the machine-tool industry.] However, the machine-tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas. [Finally, the Defense Department publicly realized and connected this security issue with the import quota issue.]

The question stem is:

Which of the following, if true, contributes most to an explanation of the machine-tool industry’s raising the issue [of import quotas to] national security?

Does it help you? Let me know.

C. The machine-tool industry encountered difficulty in obtaining governmental protection against imports on grounds other than defense.
machine-tool industry raised national security issue in its petition for import quotas to take leverage of the position taken by the defense dept. Industry made its petition strong & implied that "if you don't accept this petition, Industry will shrink & that shrinkage will have an impact on National Security"

Yes , now its clear enough.However,I would have never got the stimulus the way you interpreted it for me.In fact, this question literally killed me.

Rgds,
TGC !

The link that you are missing is the link the question assumes (and even other questions will assume). The link is between the imports of goods and the impact on the local industry. What happens if there are imports of goods? It negatively impacts the local industry. Right? What if we limit the imports through some import quota? It'll be better for the local industry. Right?

Now, if your security is at stake if an industry shrinks further, isn't it logical that you'll start thinking of import quotas in that industry so that the local industry is saved?

- Chiranjeev

Paradaox -
Import quota - minimum limit on import.
It is important to understand that " Import Quota limit" can be good for one group and bad for another.

current supply for defense = Manufacturing industry + import

Manufacturing industry suppy may decrease so defense department wants to increase import hence increase import quota limit.

Import quota limit is bad for Defense Department because manufacture industry may shrink and for prolonged war defense department required more defense supply.
On the other hand,
import quota limit is good for Machine tool industry because it will help against foreign competition. Hence, machine tool industry wants the quota limit to be present or not increased.

Now, Paradox is-

Defense department wanted to use national security to increase quota raising security concern.
Machine tool industry gave same national security reason to put quota.

Why?

Option C explains that it will be easier to get the quota implemented by giving defense related (national security related) issue.

No other option explains this paradox.

Difficult part - It is difficult to comprehend that what is import quota and it can swing both ways good or bad for different groups.

Cheers!!

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.

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.

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 !!

I spent 3:30 minutes on this question and got it wrong.

I narrowed down the choices to B and C. Ultimately, I chose

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

My rationale: if the The Defense Department is only marginally concerned with the effects of foreign competition on the machine-tool industry, then maybe The Defense Department did not connect the dots between declining machine tool industry and the effect of that on national security. Therefore, the machine tool industry raised the national security issue in its petition for import quotas in order to bring the Defense Department's attention to the issue and get support required.

Obviously this is incorrect, but am not sure why. Can anyone please clarify?

Thanks

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.

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.

my take wud be C : The machine-tool industry encountered difficulty in obtaining governmental protection against imports on grounds other than defense.

Hi,

Although your explanation is appropriate,I am still unable to get the stimulus as to why it is a paradox.

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.

Above statement says that "Before DD connected security with import , MTI raised NSI in its petition for Import Quotas".Somehow I am unable to get this statement because of the usage of "However".Don't know where the contrast lies when MTI and DD both are connecting Security Issue with the Imports.

Shrinkage of MTI => USA ability decreases to wage a prolonged war.

Plz Advise

Rgds,
TGC !

Hi expert,
I couldn't dissect the argument.What does the second sentence explain?