Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 18:58 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 18:58
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   3   
705-805 Level|   Inference|   Must be True|                  
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 28 Dec 2019, 03:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Asad
Quote:
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?

(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.


VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
Hello,
Don't you think that the underlined part has exaggerated the choice D?
My knowledge on ''draw the conclusion'' says that 'An absolute degree of anything requires absolute support, no exception.' There is no shift of ''likely'' (no conversion to always) in choice D. So, why did we use exaggeration (at some time)?
I think this portion is the key to your question: "a high degree of both international accord and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained." Because of that last part ("must be sustained"), we know that the 1) international accord and 2) ability to prevent goods from entering/leaving must be kept up in order for the embargo to succeed.

If a total blockade is likely to cause international discord, that means that international accord will likely NOT be sustained. At some point the blockade will likely cause international discord, which would probably cause the embargo to fail.

How long will it take for the blockade to cause enough international discord to disrupt the embargo? We don't know. But based on the information in the passage, the blockade will likely cause the embargo to fail at some point in time.

I don't think "at some time" in choice (D) is an issue -- it simply conveys the idea that the timing of the failure is unknown.

More importantly, we can eliminate the other choices with POE, and (D) is the choice that is most strongly supported.

I hope that helps!
Show more

VeritasKarishma
Asad
Quote:
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?

(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.


VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
Hello,
Don't you think that the underlined part has exaggerated the choice D?
My knowledge on ''draw the conclusion'' says that 'An absolute degree of anything requires absolute support, no exception.' There is no shift of ''likely'' (no conversion to always) in choice D. So, why did we use exaggeration (at some time)?

"at some time" does not change the intent of the option at all.
"... is likely to fail" is the same as "... is likely to fail at some time"

It just means that even if it may not fail immediately, it is likely to fail sooner or later.
"... is likely to fail" also means the same thing since it doesn't specify the time frame.
Show more

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma
So, IF we remove the highlighted part, then we must change the correct answer option like the following way, right?
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria will fail always (NOT likely).
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [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: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [2]
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 29 Dec 2019, 23:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Asad

So, IF we remove the highlighted part, then we must change the correct answer option like the following way, right?
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria will fail always (NOT likely).
Show more

Yes, if your premises gives you certainty about some future event, you can conclude that it will happen. If you are given that such an action will cause international discord, then you know that a trade embargo will fail.
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de Updated on: 28 Apr 2020, 21:39
Originally posted by kornn on 26 Apr 2020, 23:08.
Last edited by kornn on 28 Apr 2020, 21:39, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear egmat VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh GMATGuruNY GMATNinjaTwo MartyTargetTestPrep,

I have problem with choice A.

What does “balance of opinion” mean? Does it mean 50% agree with Patria and the other 50% disagree?

Also, I'm not quite clear why choice A. is wrong because it tells me that one of necessary conditions is not met ("the balance of opinion" is NOT "international accord"). Since the condition is not fulfilled, "a trade embargo against" Patria is unlikely. So, the absence of trade embargo against Patria "favors Patria"

Why is this thinking wrong?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [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: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [2]
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 28 Apr 2020, 21:06
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear egmat VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh GMATGuruNY GMATNinjaTwo,

I have problem with choice A.

What does “balance of opinion” mean? Does it mean 50% agree with Patria and the other 50% disagree?

Also, I'm not quite clear why choice A. is wrong because it tells me that one of necessary conditions is not met ("the balance of opinion" is NOT "international accord"). Since the condition is not fulfilled, "a trade embargo against" Patria is unlikely. So, the absence of trade embargo against Patria "favors Patria"

Why is this thinking wrong?
Show more

Option (A) means that international opinion will favour Patria. Please recall that this is a conclusion question. You need an option that you can conclude. You cannot conclude that opinion will favour Patria. You have been given in the argument that one can expect international discord.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,795
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,795
 [2]
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 29 Apr 2020, 06:16
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I received a PM requesting that I comment.

The contrapositive of IF A, THEN B is IF NOT B, THEN NOT A.
If an IF-THEN statement is true, its contrapositive is also true.
True IF-THEN statement:
If John is in Times Square, then John is in New York.
Contrapositive:
If John is not in New York, then John is not in Times Square.

Note:
For X to happen, Y must happen = If X, then Y.
Example:
'For John to be in Times Square, John must be in New York.
Converted to an IF-THEN statement:
If John is in Times Square, then John is in New York.

Quote:
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.
Show more

A total blockade of Patria's ports is necessary to an embargo.
Since an embargo requires a total blockade of Patria's ports, we get:
If there is an embargo against Patria, then there is a total blockade of Patria's ports.

Such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo.
If there is a total blockade of Patria's ports, then there is likely to be international discord.

For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord...must be sustained.
Converted to an IF-THEN statement:
If an embargo against a country succeeds, then a high degree of international accord must be sustained.
Contrapositive:
If a high degree of international accord is NOT sustained, then an embargo against a country will NOT succeed.
In other words:
If there is international discord, then an embargo will fail.

Linking together the three statements in bold, we get:
Embargo against Patria --> total blockade against Patria's ports --> likely international discord --> embargo fails.
Thus, option D must be true:
D: Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time

Show Spoiler
D

varotkorn
I have problem with choice A.

What does “balance of opinion” mean? Does it mean 50% agree with Patria and the other 50% disagree?

Also, I'm not quite clear why choice A. is wrong because it tells me that one of necessary conditions is not met ("the balance of opinion" is NOT "international accord"). Since the condition is not fulfilled, "a trade embargo against" Patria is unlikely. So, the absence of trade embargo against Patria "favors Patria"

Why is this thinking wrong?
Show more

One definition of balance is a majority.
A common idiom is the balance of X.
Conveyed meaning:
the MAJORITY of X.
Example:
The balance of the book is about the economy.
Conveyed meaning:
MOST OF THE BOOK is about the economy.

Thus:
the balance of opinion = the MAJORITY of opinion = WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE.

A: The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
Conveyed meaning:
If there is a blockade, most people are likely to favor Patria.
Passage:
If there is a blockade, then there is likely to be international discord.
The phrases in red are not the same.
Thus, option A does NOT have to be true.
Eliminate A.
avatar
TheMBmonster
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Last visit: 21 Feb 2021
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 212
Location: Canada
Schools: INSEAD Jan'21 Intake CEIBS '22 Booth '22
GPA: 3.67
Schools: INSEAD Jan'21 Intake CEIBS '22 Booth '22
Posts: 15
Kudos: 9
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 11 Jul 2020, 10:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Dear experts, I was hoping you could help me with a little issue with this problem.

I understand why d) is right, but I have issues eliminating a)

a) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade. --> Balance of opinion = the fact there is discord about the embargo, and discord leads to failed embargo because the embargo doesn't meet the two necessary conditions i.e. intl' accord + ability to prevent circulation of goods. And a failed embargo is favorable to Patria... thereofre the balance of opinion can favor Patria

I feel that my issue is around the "Balance of opinion = the fact there is discord about the embargo". What else could balance of opinion mean if it doesn't mean that there is discord...

The other issue might be with "likely", it's not clear what the probabilities are. What is clear though is that if either necessary conditions aren't present, then the embargo will fail. And a failed embargo MUST be favourable to Patria, no?

Thanks in advance
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [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: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 15 Jul 2020, 00:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheMBmonster
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Dear experts, I was hoping you could help me with a little issue with this problem.

I understand why d) is right, but I have issues eliminating a)

a) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade. --> Balance of opinion = the fact there is discord about the embargo, and discord leads to failed embargo because the embargo doesn't meet the two necessary conditions i.e. intl' accord + ability to prevent circulation of goods. And a failed embargo is favorable to Patria... thereofre the balance of opinion can favor Patria

I feel that my issue is around the "Balance of opinion = the fact there is discord about the embargo". What else could balance of opinion mean if it doesn't mean that there is discord...

The other issue might be with "likely", it's not clear what the probabilities are. What is clear though is that if either necessary conditions aren't present, then the embargo will fail. And a failed embargo MUST be favourable to Patria, no?

Thanks in advance
Show more

The premises very clearly state that "international accord" is necessary and that blockade WILL lead to international discord. Now, does it matter who the balance of opinion favours? It is still a discord. If 60% favour Patria and 40% are against Patria, this is still international discord. We NEED international accord.
Hence (A) is incorrect. It doesn't matter whether balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria or not.
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 27 Jan 2021, 02:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am going to go against the grain on this one. I actually don't think the answer is sensible. A should be the correct answer.

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. Correct

(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.

B is clearly out. It goes in the opposite direction.

(C) A naval blockade of Patria's ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.

C is out ...we need international accord AND closing of the ports.

(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.

In my view, the problem with this choice is that it presupposes that the embargo is a success. To get that success one would need accord AND limitations on what goes in and out of the country. We also know that a total embargo would cause discord...which clearly violates one of the conditions. Therefore, a trade embargo would not be successful to begin with (because of such discord). So...how can we infer that they are likely to FAIL if they never succeeded to begin with?

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

Unanimous takes things too far. All the passage says is that a HIGH DEGREE of accord is required.

Can experts chime in on this? GMATNinja?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [3]
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 29 Jan 2021, 15:18
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
CEdward
I am going to go against the grain on this one. I actually don't think the answer is sensible. A should be the correct answer.

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. Correct

(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.

B is clearly out. It goes in the opposite direction.

(C) A naval blockade of Patria's ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.

C is out ...we need international accord AND closing of the ports.

(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.

In my view, the problem with this choice is that it presupposes that the embargo is a success. To get that success one would need accord AND limitations on what goes in and out of the country. We also know that a total embargo would cause discord...which clearly violates one of the conditions. Therefore, a trade embargo would not be successful to begin with (because of such discord). So...how can we infer that they are likely to FAIL if they never succeeded to begin with?

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

Unanimous takes things too far. All the passage says is that a HIGH DEGREE of accord is required.

Can experts chime in on this? GMATNinja?
Show more
Let’s start with (D). The passage indicates that international accord and a blockade must be sustained in order for a trade embargo to succeed.

That does not mean that these two elements are required to initiate a trade embargo. (D) says “any trade embargo against Patria” would likely fail at some time. This means that if a trade embargo against Patria is implemented, it will likely fail. But it does not mean that the trade embargo was ever successful.

In fact, at some time implies that the trade embargo could fail from the very beginning. If that’s the case, then the trade embargo would never be successful. So, (D) does not imply a successful trade embargo.

As for (A), the passage merely indicates that there will be international discord over the embargo if there is a blockade. This only means that there will be disagreement. But we don’t know who the balance of opinion will favor. Maybe 75% of nations will be in favor of the blockade and 25% will be against it. If this is the case, then there is international discord, but the balance of opinion is not in favor of Patria.

For that reason, (A) is not supported by the passage, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 08 Jan 2022, 20:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman - i eliminated D because
(#1) Your international accord maybe 'High', say at 80 %.
(#2) You can block all ports (Causing Discord, which can be deduced as 20 %)

Both these conditions can take place at the same time, gauranteeing the embargo will NOT FAIL .
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 07:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
avigutman - i eliminated D because
(#1) Your international accord maybe 'High', say at 80 %.
(#2) You can block all ports (Causing Discord, which can be deduced as 20 %)

Both these conditions can take place at the same time, gauranteeing the embargo will NOT FAIL .
Show more

jabhatta2 The uncertain language in this answer choice (likely to fail at some time) makes it a dangerous elimination without finding a better answer choice. Your bigger mistake was in picking whichever answer choice you did pick over this one.
Now, let's dig into this particular answer choice. You seem confident that it's possible to achieve a high degree of international accord while international discord is present. But, the text doesn't provide any information on that. Is it possible? Maybe, I don't know.
Further, you claim:
jabhatta2
Both these conditions can take place at the same time, guaranteeing the embargo will NOT FAIL .
Show more
guaranteeing is very hard to prove. The text never claimed that if both conditions are met, the embargo will surely succeed. Rather, the text claimed that if those conditions are NOT met, the embargo will NOT succeed. In other words, the conditions are necessary, but (maybe) not sufficient, for the embargo to succeed.

Looking at this answer choice in the context of the other four answer choices, the others are much easier to eliminate:
(A) The balance of opinion is likely to - we don't know anything about the balance of opinion
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed - what about the total blockade??
(C) A naval blockade of Patria's ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria - the text doesn't support this claim at all!
(E) For a blockade of Patria's ports to be successful, ... - the text didn't tell us what's required for a blockade to be successful.

I think the bigger takeaway for you is to pay more attention to the claims made in each answer choice for this question type, and ask yourself whether the text supports such a claim. The language used in each claim is very important: the stronger the language, the more support is required. When in doubt, guess the answer choice that has the weaker language.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de Updated on: 09 Jan 2022, 13:02
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 09 Jan 2022, 11:21.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 09 Jan 2022, 13:02, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
3) Do you see Discord and Accord as MECE ? I know the CR doesnt state it out loud, but one is allowed to make reasonable assumptions in CR.

For a succesful embargo, one requirement is "High accord".

Thus, clearly some amount of "Discord" is permissable at the same time as "High accord".

If "High accord" means says 75 % of total countries are required for a 'succesful trade embargo -- then 25 % of Discord is permissable

I agree its not written in the text of the CR, but i think its a reasonable inference.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de Updated on: 09 Jan 2022, 13:04
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 09 Jan 2022, 11:28.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 09 Jan 2022, 13:04, edited 7 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman

Now, let's dig into this particular answer choice. You seem confident that it's possible to achieve a high degree of international accord while international discord is present. But, the text doesn't provide any information on that. Is it possible? Maybe, I don't know.
Further, you claim:
jabhatta2
Both these conditions can take place at the same time, guaranteeing the embargo will NOT FAIL .
guaranteeing is very hard to prove. The text never claimed that if both conditions are met, the embargo will surely succeed. Rather, the text claimed that if those conditions are NOT met, the embargo will NOT succeed. In other words, the conditions are necessary, but (maybe) not sufficient, for the embargo to succeed.
Show more

Hi avigutman - I agree with the text in the blue.

But i dont see how the blue text prooves definitely THAT D has to be true.

D rephrased says -- The Trade embargos against Patria will always fail IN EVERY SCENARIO

Per my post above, one can some discord | high degree of accord | complete blockading of ports at the same time

These are minimum requirements for the blockade of patria.

Will the blockade against patria be succesfull? I dont know
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 11:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman


Looking at this answer choice in the context of the other four answer choices, the others are much easier to eliminate:
(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria- we don't know anything about the balance of opinion.
Show more

avigutman - wanted to dive a bit deeper into what you mean 'we dont know anthing aobut the balance of opinon' specifically when it comes to A

The balance of opinon in favor of Patria is nothing but the level of Discord, is it not ?

I eliminated A because once the embargo is slapped on Patria, we dont know the level of Discord specifically.

Thats we i eliminated A

But -- To me, all three terms are interchangle (i.e. if you know one, you can deduce all three)
- balance of opinion
- level of discord
- level of accord
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 13:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Do you see Discord and Accord as MECE ?
Show more

jabhatta2 No, I don't. I don't know what the GMAT means by "high degree of international accord". But the language in the text leads me to believe that international discord is detrimental to a "high degree of international accord".
What language, specifically?

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.

In fact, as you read those two sentences, do you try to predict what the author is attempting to convince us of? You should always do that for this question type. I'm imagining that I'm the president, and the CIA is giving me a briefing about Patria. I requested an intelligence assessment of the possibility of a trade embargo against Patria, and the analyst's response is this:
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.

Does that sound to you like the analyst is optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral about the likelihood that a trade embargo against Patria will be successful?
What do you think the analyst's conclusion is going to be? Or, what conclusion do you think he's leading me to?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 13:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
To me, all three terms are interchangeable (i.e. if you know one, you can deduce all three)
- balance of opinion
- level of discord
- level of accord
Show more

jabhatta2 A quick Google of "balance of opinion" revealed this:
The balance of opinion is defined as the difference between the proportion of respondents having expressed a positive opinion and the proportion of respondents having expressed a negative opinion.
But the text didn't provide the information required to compute such a difference, or even to find whether that difference is positive or negative. All we know is that a total blockade of Patria's ports would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo. How can we make claims about "the balance of opinion" based on that?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 13:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
D rephrased says -- The Trade embargos against Patria will always fail IN EVERY SCENARIO
Show more

What happened to all the uncertain language in your rephrase? You rephrased "likely to fail" -> "will always fail". You rephrased "at some time" -> "IN EVERY SCENARIO".

With the original wording of answer choice D, we needn't prove anything definitively. This is why the guessing strategy of 'err on the side of weaker language' is so useful.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 13:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2
Do you see Discord and Accord as MECE ?

jabhatta2 No, I don't. I don't know what the GMAT means by "high degree of international accord". But the language in the text leads me to believe that international discord is detrimental to a "high degree of international accord".
What language, specifically?

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.

In fact, as you read those two sentences, do you try to predict what the author is attempting to convince us of? You should always do that for this question type. I'm imagining that I'm the president, and the CIA is giving me a briefing about Patria. I requested an intelligence assessment of the possibility of a trade embargo against Patria, and the analyst's response is this:
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.

Does that sound to you like the analyst is optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral about the likelihood that a trade embargo against Patria will be successful?
What do you think the analyst's conclusion is going to be? Or, what conclusion do you think he's leading me to?
Show more

Hi avigutman – I exactly thought like this actually 😊
I am the president and I receive this from my CIA chief

avigutman
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
Show more


My next follow up question as president will be
-- Well – how much ‘discord’ will my planned move cause if I go ahead with this embargo of Patria?

-- What is the approx. split between according countries vs discording countries?

There is a push and pull obviously
- If 197 countries accord and 3 countries DISCORD, as president I am optimistic
- If 150 countries accord and 50 countries DISCORD, as president I am optimistic
- If its 50 – 50 split down the middle, well I am neutral
- If 10 countries according where 190 discord, then I am pessimistic

It is this split exactly, which pushed me to believe Accord and Discord are MECE - – either a country is in favor of my decision or it is NOT in favor of my decision
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 14:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2

avigutman

Does that sound to you like the analyst is optimistic, pessimistic, or neutral about the likelihood that a trade embargo against Patria will be successful?
What do you think the analyst's conclusion is going to be? Or, what conclusion do you think he's leading me to?

My next follow up question as president will be
-- Well – how much ‘discord’ will my planned move cause if I go ahead with this embargo of Patria?

-- What is the approx. split between according countries vs discording countries?
Show more

jabhatta2 thinking about follow up questions is great for 'evaluate' type problems. Not so much in drawing a conclusion.
Note our difference in approach above. I was wondering what conclusion the analyst appears to be leading me to, and whether he sounds optimistic or pessimistic about the embargo's chances of success. You were wondering what additional information you'd like to have.

Regarding specific countries' opinions on the embargo: we have no information on that, and we have no way of analyzing that information even if we did have it (because we weren't given definitions for "international accord" or "international discord").
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high de 09 Jan 2022, 19:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2
D rephrased says -- The Trade embargos against Patria will always fail IN EVERY SCENARIO

What happened to all the uncertain language in your rephrase? You rephrased "likely to fail" -> "will always fail". You rephrased "at some time" -> "IN EVERY SCENARIO".

With the original wording of answer choice D, we needn't prove anything definitively. This is why the guessing strategy of 'err on the side of weaker language' is so useful.
Show more

Thank you avigutman - if i try to undertand the wording of D with an analogy

(i) Every driver would be likely to crash at some time
(ii) Every driver will crash at some time

Is there any difference between these two ?

Too me, both are one of the same

You dont think so ?
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts