Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings

Question

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be a world leader.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following?

(A) A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be a world leader.
(B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain to be a world leader.
(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another nation set by that nation cannot be a world leader.
(D) A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.
(E) A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be a world leader.

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Hi Swaiti007

This question is about " supporter assumption ".

The stimulus says:
 Fact:  Lender sets the terms of its dealings with a nation who wants to borrow money
 Conclusion:  a nation that borrows money from another nation cannot be world leader

You can see the flow:  Lender sets terms of borrowing to A nation who wants to borrow ==> This nation cannot be World leader.  
The assumption should connect "terms of borrowing" to "world leader". 
 The assumption should be:  Any nation who has terms of borrowing that are set by another nation ==> cannot be world leader

C says: A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be a world leader. 
It means:  X, who has the terms of X's dealing with Y set by Y, cannot be a world leader 
Hence, C is correct.

D is wrong because It's simply a  reverse answer . D says: X is world leader because Y does not set terms of dealing with X.  But  the real assumption is: X has terms of dealing that are set by Y ==> X is not world leader.

Hope it helps.

ywilfred · Answer

1) Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealing
2) Nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealing with the borrower
3) That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be a world leader <-- conclusion

nation owe money ---> cannot be world leader
can be world leader ---> does not owe money

Conclusion is true only if a nation is a world leader when it does not owe money to any other nation. We need an assumption along this line of reasoning.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following? 

(A) A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be a world leader. 
- Out

(B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain to be a world leader. 
- No. We're told the nation can be one, but not definitely one (which the word 'certain' suggests)

(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be a world leader. 
- Yes. If we're told a nation that has the terms of its dealing set by another nation and this is sufficient to make it not be a 'world leader', then it's true that a nation that does not owe money (sets the terms) is a world leader.

(D) A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations. 
- No. Does not tells us why not oweing money makes a nation a world leader

(E) A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be world leader. 
- Out
 
I'll take C

swati007 · Answer

Re-posting for further discussion.

Aristotle CR.

Economic considerations colour every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.
The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following?
(A) A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be a world leader.
(B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain
to be a world leader.
(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that
nation cannot be a world leader.
(D) A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that
other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.
(E) A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be world leader.

Doubt: Why is D wrong? What exactly does C mean by another action set?

tanishajain800 · Answer

A,E straight away out.

I chose B initially which Says: (B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations  is certain 
to be a world leader.  
But, I found the wording of the statement is really strong.This is less like an assumption but seems more like a conclusion.

My answer: 
(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that 
nation cannot be a world leader.

This perfectly fits as the answer and also matches the wording.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Actually, B and C are equally strong. B says "If X happens, then Y will certainly happen." C says "If X does NOT happen, Y will certainly NOT happen."

The easiest way to spot the difference is in looking at the end result. The argument concludes that certain countries will NOT be world leaders, so we need a choice that leads to that outcome. Knowing what will guarantee leadership does not tell us what will  prevent  leadership. However, we could just as well look at the first part of the conditional. We are talking about countries that CANNOT set their own terms, so the premise feeds into C, not B.

A more intuitive way to look at it is that B helps us to conclude that lending countries ARE world leaders (something the argument isn't claiming), while C addresses the actual claim made in the argument: that borrowing countries cannot be world leaders.

Skywalker18 · Answer

"the conclusion is about nations who own the money can not be a leader, but that does not mean the other nation would be a leader." Indeed, as far as we're concerned, maybe none of them can be a world leader.

So we're concluding that a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be a world leader. But all we know from the premise about the debtor nation is that it doesn't get to set the terms of the deal -- it's the lender who gets to set the terms. So we need an assumption that says, "If you're not setting the terms of your loan, you can't be a world leader."

That's exactly what (C) says, which is why it's correct.

(A) is out because this doesn't tell us anything about the nation that owes money.

(B) also is irrelevant as we discussed; we care about the nation that borrows, not the one that lends.

(D) was tempting to me, but it's actually backwards. It's telling us that if the other nation doesn't set the terms, you can be a world leader -- but that doesn't mean you can't be a world leader if the other nation does set the terms.

(E) is incorrect because we're talking about a nation that does have dealings with other nations.

AnirudhaS · Answer

Lets say Nation A lends money to Nation B.
The argument says since B cannot be a world leader because A sets all the terms

Lets look at option C now,
(C) A nation (referring to B) that has the terms of its dealings with another nation (referring to A) set by that nation (again referring to A) cannot be a world leader.

Arielltl · Answer

A nation  that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by  that nation  cannot be a world leader.

I'm confused with "that nation", it made me think that C is talking about the lender who set the terms. Can someone help explain this point?

i256 · Answer

+1... confused by what is meant by "another action set by THAT nation"

TheGraceful · Answer

Correct. THAT nation refers to lender.
If you have studied modifiers in SC , you wouldn't have been in doubt for this...

please press kudos if, this has helped you in some way...

ricardorr04 · Answer

This one was a bit puzzling but got to right answer C in 2.5 mins.

Choice C is analogous to the premise - if a nation has dealings with another nation, but does not set the terms (analogous to the borrower, because lender sets the terms) then that nation cannot be a world leader.

tenben · Answer

Very tricky. But easy.
con:-a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be  world leader .
Pre-nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. 
I will teach you guys a very powerful technique of questioning the contents of a conclusion
Follow this easy strategy of asking questions developed by me.
Ask yourself this question that  What cannot make a nation a world leader 
And move to assumption options

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following?

(A) A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be a world leader.  My question is what cannot make a worldleader? They say what makes it. Incorrect

(B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain to be a world leader.  Not intrested in making world leaders.

(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be a world leader.  ah huh. These answers my question

(D) A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.  Not intrested in making world leaders.

(E) A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be world leader.  Not intrested in making world leaders.

Learn verbal with karan

unraveled · Answer

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following?

(A) A nation that  does not lend to any other nation cannot  be a world leader. - WRONG. Lending and owing money are two different things and thus may result in two different ways.

(B) A nation that can  set the terms of its dealings  with other nations is  certain  to be a world leader. - WRONG. Setting terms is still fine but 'certain' is unacceptable as it goes beyond the realms of the passage.

(C) A nation that has the  terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot  be a world leader. - CORRECT.

(D) A nation that is a  world leader can borrow from another nation  as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations. - WRONG. This may or may not happen at later stage.

(E) A nation that has  no dealings with any other nation  cannot be world leader. - WRONG. This goes out of scope with the red text.

Answer C.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards