Question Type: Inference

Situation: To stop violence in Kirkland, vote to send a peacekeeping force + funding from Nandia is required
But
If Nandia helps surrounding nations will not vote to send a peacekeeping force.

We have to find an option that must be true based on the stated facts.

(A) Nandia is the wealthiest nation in the region surrounding Kirkenberg. - Incorrect. Out of scope.

(B) Violence in Kirkenberg is likely to result in unrest in other countries in the region. - Incorrect. Out of scope.

(C) It is unlikely that the violence in Kirkenberg will be stopped. - Correct. There are 2 requirements to stop the violence. But both the requirements cannot be fulfilled.

(D) Most nations surrounding Kirkenberg oppose the current leadership in India - Incorrect. Out of scope.

(E) The peacekeeping forces would not have sufficient equipment without financial support from Nandia - Incorrect. Out of scope.

Answer: C

For the violence in Kirkenberg to be stopped, the majority of surrounding nations must vote to send a peacekeeping force, and the wealthy nation of Nandia must provide funding. If Nandia becomes involved in any way regarding Kirkenberg, at least half of the nations surrounding Kirkenberg will vote against intervening in Kirkenberg.

Type- inference
Boil it down - the 2 necessary conditions for violence in Kirkenberg to stop are the majority of surrounding nations must vote for force and the wealthy nation of Nandia must provide funding. But, two of them can't occur at the same time.

(A) Nandia is the wealthiest nation in the region surrounding Kirkenberg. - Incorrect

(B) Violence in Kirkenberg is likely to result in unrest in other countries in the region. - Out of scope - this is too far fetched

(C) It is unlikely that the violence in Kirkenberg will be stopped.- Correct

(D) Most nations surrounding Kirkenberg oppose the current leadership in Nandia. - Incorrect - while this may be true, it need not be true

(E) The peacekeeping forces would not have sufficient equipment without financial support from Nandia.- Out of scope

Answer C
_________________

How can we say that it is unlikely that the violence will be stopped? If Nandia provides funding atleast half of the countries will not send troops, but the remaining can right? It's not mentioned anywhere that the forces from all the nations are required to stop the violence?

I went with D using the same logic.

But if you look closely the passage has two conditions (, and is used) which must BOTH be satisfied. First condition is that "majority" of the nations send troops. D tells us that majority may not send, therefore the condition in D is broken.

Easy Q. Need to look at the passage stem carefully.

Posted from my mobile device

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(C) It is unlikely that the violence in Kirkenberg will be stopped: You saw this argument before.

The question asks you to support a conclusion found in the answer choices, so this is an Inference problem.

Sketch out what you know:



In order for the violence to stop, two things must happen: 1) At least 50% of surrounding nations have to vote to send in a peacekeeping force, and 2) Nandia has to provide funding. But if Nandia does actually provide that funding, then at least half of the other nations will vote against sending in the peacekeeping force.

What must be true, given this information? On the one hand, Kirkenberg needs funding from Nandia. On the other, if it gets that funding, then it won’t have 50% or greater support from the surrounding nations for the peacekeeping force. Things don’t look good for Kirkenberg. Answer (C) is correct: It looks pretty unlikely that the violence in Kirkenberg can be stopped.

Answer (A) goes too far with the word wealthiest. Nandia is described only as wealthy, not the wealthiest. Answer (B) goes beyond the scope of the argument; no information is provided as to what may happen in other countries.

Answers (D) and (E) both introduce information that goes beyond what the argument discusses. On Inference questions, stick tightly to the information presented. Don’t bring in outside information. Answer (D) talks about the current leadership and answer (E) talks about equipment, neither of which is addressed in the argument.


_________________

This is a logical argument structure that has shown up in an official question.

For event A to happen, two necessary conditions both must be met. If either one of these necessary conditions is not met, then event A can not occur.

If A ———-> then need B AND C


Then, we are told that both of the necessary events can not occur together (one interferes with the other, etc.)

This is, in effect, the “contrapositive” and leads to the conclusion that event A (the “sufficient condition) is not likely to occur.

If Not B OR C ————> then A can NOT happen


IF: violence in K stopped ————-> THEN: must have majority nations vote AND N provide funding (need both necessary conditions met)

Contrapositive:

IF: do NOT have majority nations vote OR N does NOT provide funding (if at least one of the necessary conditions is not met) ———-> THEN: violence in K NOT stopped


If N becomes involved “in ANY way” (which presumably includes providing funding) ———> then can NOT have majority of nations vote


What the facts are telling us is that it is not possible to have both of the required necessary conditions met at the same time. Since both conditions must be met, it is unlikely that the violence can be stopped in K.

This is exactly what answer C suggests.

The rest of the answers are not supported by the facts or make conclusions that go too far beyond the supporting evidence.

(A) is a trap designed to catch you sleeping and attempting to match words in the answer choices to words in the passage. We are told that Nandia is wealthy, but nothing suggests that the country is the “wealthiest”.

(B) discusses a topic not covered by the passage. We do not know what effect the violence in K will have on other nations.

(D) does the same thing that (B) does: it provides a statement that goes beyond the supporting premises. Even if the other half of the nations DO support sending peacekeeping forces, “voting to send peacekeeping forces” does not necessarily equate to countries’ “opposition of the current leadership.” Maybe they approve of the leadership and want to send forces to keep the current leadership in power.

Regardless, 1/2 does not equal a majority ( > 50%)

(E) we have no idea whether the funding from N is a necessary requirement for enough equipment.

Posted from my mobile device