For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de

I'd go with D. Its because the statement should be a conclusion. The argument is
1. Complete blockage required for trade embargo to succeed.
2. Trying to enforce a complete blockage is likely to create a discorm amongst nations.

The only logical conclusion is that "therefore, a trade embargo against Patria is likely to fail".

Stmts B and E are suggestions for the embargo to succeed, not conclusions.
Stmt A is wrong because the passage doesn't mention that international discord would help Patria.
C is simply a fact. already stated in the arguments, not a conclusion.

In E, unanimous agreement does not necessarily mean a high degree of cooperation.

Therefore, D.

D IMO

just take it this way..

A-->embargo

B-->condn 1(a high degree of both international accord )
and
C-->condn 2(ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country)

As per the passage
For A(embargo) to happen we need both B and C

Now which one strongly supports it?
Obviously D.

(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

nitya34,
Thanks for explanation but I am not able to relate your conditions with option D. Can you be a bit more elaborative?

I chose E.. and if possible, can you explain why E is wrong? (E option may be very strong (unanimous opinion) ..?)

Thanks.

k i think i get this question ..

"For a trade embargo against a particular country to
succeed, a high degree of both international accord
and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving
that country must be sustained"----------this is the condtion for success

"A total blockade of
Patria’s ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an
action would be likely to cause international discord
over the embargo."---------indicates lack of international accord
what can u conclude?
a) you cannot say this for sure --reject
b)lacks the condition ( ability to prevent goods)--so success may or may not be possible
c)cannot say this for sure that this will happen for all we know someone might smuggle the goods--so rejected
d)consider the tone.." likely " indicates that the tone is modest, ---not easy to see this though so this looks ohke
e) too strict ..

Hi Karisma , i got the question right missed on a few points which you covered very well.Can you also tell what is mean by "International accord ".My line of reasoning was that International accord does not neccesarily mean that all should agree unanimously

A high degree of international accord means that most countries should agree to the decision. But the argument mentions "A total blockade of
Patria’s ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an
action would be likely to cause international discord
over the embargo."
So whatever is the level of accord that is needed, is likely to be not received.

My explanation:
A> Out of scope
B>no mention about the blockade is given. Thus, insufficient
C>1. this cannot be a conclusion
2.'naval'-->additional info introduced in a must be true question. Not allowed
D> focus on[color=#ff0000] 'likely'. Stimulus says that a total blockade is 'likely' to cause discord.Thus, any trade embargo would be likely to fail. Notice, 'at some time' is only given to confuse you folks!
E> 2 conditions are necessary. therefore, this option is clearly insufficient.
cheers[/color]

First of all, we need to know that it is an infer question. (Yippe! Half way done!)

Premise1: Two actions (international accord + preventing goods from moving in or out of banned country) are NECESSARY for success of embargo.
Premise2: The actions will result in an outcome that will defeat one of the two action which is necessary for the outcome.

Read as: The actions will result in an outcome (total blockade) that (by causing international discord) will defeat one of the two action (international accord) which is necessary for the outcome.

Use 'Prethinking for CR' (a term coined by e-gmat)
Logic says that when the prerequisites for an action is killed by outcome of the action, the action may not survive. So, an Embargo which is defeating its NECESSARY requisites will be eventually fail.

We already know the answer at this stage. Still let us check the options

A. 'Shell game' (a term coined by GMAT CR Bible Book)
This is tempting. Our real world knowledge sways away to think that embargo is bad. So, if an embargo fails, it may be favouring Patria!
Wait! Wait ! Wait! What if embargo caused a regime change in Patria and this event paved way for a meritocratic system of governance influence by theory of Übermensch! And then like Germany, Patria became a powerful nation! In this case, embargo might help Patria!!

Am I introducing my personal judgement that embargo is bad? If yes... that is bad habit for CR. Beware!

B. P2 says that international discord will arise. This option negates my P2. At the most, this option create a P3. But in that case also, the argument is left bare without any conclusion/inference.

C. At the most, the option can serve as definition of embargo and may serve as Premise3. Still no sign of conclusion 'shore' for my 'logic ship'.

D. Logical syllogism says that Embargo will fail. This is exactly what we want!

E. In the light of premise1 and 2, this option is self defeating. P2: If blockade is successful, international discord will arise. So, international opinion can never be unanimous.

I got confused and chose B.
If the embargo were to be made, only as long as the international opinion will be against it will succeed.
So how can I avoid this kind of mistake?

The 'conclusion' questions are usually pretty mathematical and just need a step by step approach. Here, you know that A and B are necessary for C. But A will imply 'not B'. So you can conclude that C will not happen.

After you practice a few such questions, they will make a lot of sense.

Hey,

To add to this - in case it is still useful - indeed D is the correct answer, even though I also chose E.

E is wrong because of the word unanimous. It is true that this word is an exaggeration, but I think that this one really requires you to take it to the limits in order to agree that "unanimous" is that far away from "high degree" of international accord. So, indeed, this is not the correct answer, even though I think it is not wrong. It is just one og the GMAT cases where you really have to take it 100% literal. Anyway, it is what it is!

D is correct, but I found another reason that the one presented by nitya34.
The stem says that the 2 conditions for an embargo to success are:
1) high level of international agreement, and
2) no goods going in and out the country (total blockage)

Now, D says that "Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time". The reason why this is true is that one of the 2 necessary conditions can NEVER happen. Specifically, a total blockage can never happen, as it is stated that "such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo". So, both use th word "likely" and together they delete on of the 2 conditions that MUST BOTH happen for a total blockage to succeed.

CR would be so much fun if you didn't have to do it for the GMAT.... I think I need a large dose of some sort of conentration pills, combined with meditation and a dose of holy spirit insipration; unfortunately, these things are exactly what I would never endorse ... May the force be with us then!

Dear Karishma,

The answer is indeed D. However, your rejection of option E didn't convince me. We have been told what it takes to ensure a successful blockade. However, E talks about 'unanimity' in option against Patria, which is not the same as a high degree of international accord. As you well know, strong words like unanimous are generally a trap.

Use variables since the terminology might be confusing you.

Argument:
For T (trade embargo) to succeed, you need both A (international accord) and B (Blockade of movement of goods which implies blockade of ports, train lines outside the country etc)
But B (Blockade of ports) is likely to cause international discord (which means A will be destroyed).

Option (E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

What your option (E) says is that for B to be successful, A must happen. Point is, the argument tells us nothing about what we need for B. It only tells us the repercussions of B (that A will not happen). We don't know what will make B successful in the first place. The argument says nothing about it. The argument only tells us what you need for T and that A will not happen if B happens. We have no idea about what is needed for B to be successful. So we cannot say that from the argument, option (E) must be true. Hence (E) is not the answer.

Successful embargo = International accord + Ability to prevent goods from entering/leaving the country.

In Patria if one of the 2 conditions is not met , then the proposed action will not be successful.

imho (D)

For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and
ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained. A total blockade of Patria’s
ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the
embargo.

The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?

(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.


(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade- nowhere this is stated or implied
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.- it is said that an embargo needs two things international opinion is unanimous and blocking of ports, this is only one. So partially correct.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.-this is more like a fact than a conclusion
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.- the last line confirms this statement. It says any embargo will see international discord.Therefore most likely fail.This is the correct answer.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.- These are two different conditions for the embargo to be successful.

embargo (noun) = to officially stop trading with another country
accord (noun) = a formal agreement between two organizations, countries, etc
discord (noun) = the state of not agreeing or sharing opinions
unanimous (adjective) = if a decision or opinion is unanimous, it is agreed or shared by everyone in a group

Situation

The success of a trade embargo requires both international accord and the ability to enforce the embargo. In the case of Patria, an embargo would require a total blockade of the ports, but the blockade itself would likely lead to international discord.

blockade (noun) = the situation in which a country or place is surrounded by soldiers or ships to stop people or goods from going in or out

Reasoning

What conclusion can be drawn from this information? A conclusion must be based only on the information provided. Since the given information discusses the general conditions for a successful trade embargo and the conditions specific to the possible embargo in Patria, the conclusion should be about the likelihood of success for a trade embargo against Patria. Since international accord is necessary for the success of an embargo but the blockade required in this case would create international discord, the contradictions of this paradoxical situation make any embargo unlikely to succeed.

Step 1: Identify the Question

Inference

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

TE success:
1. most / all agree, AND
2. block most or all goods

P: if block → disagreement

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Inference questions, the goal is to find an answer that can be proven true using ONLY the facts stated in the argument.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) Although international discord would likely result from a blockade, no information allows a conclusion to be drawn about the balance of opinion.
(B) This conclusion is not justified because a successful embargo requires both international accord and the ability to enforce the embargo.
(C) This statement simply defines the purpose of a blockade; it is not a conclusion from the information given.
(D) Correct. This statement properly identifies a conclusion supported by the claims.
(E) The necessary condition for success is a high degree of international accord, not unanimity, so this conclusion cannot be justified.