It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 07:04

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# History has shown that severe and sudden political

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 280 [1], given: 8

History has shown that severe and sudden political [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2011, 21:02
1
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:07) correct 42% (01:57) wrong based on 290 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

History has shown that severe and sudden political instability strikes country Y roughly once every 50 years. The most recent example was the attempt on the president's life in 1992. The reaction of average investors in country Y to crisis situations in the country cannot be predicted in advance. The government's fiscal affairs department has introduced an electronic protection mechanism into the stock market of country Y in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged large-scale selloff. The mechanism is triggered in specific instances based on estimations of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the electronic protection mechanism?

(A) Sometime within the next 50 years an attempt on the president's life will trigger the protection mechanism.
(B) Whether the protection mechanism will function appropriately in response to a sudden political event depends on whether the event is seen by investors as positive or negative.
(C) It is unclear how well the protection mechanism would work in the event of a sudden political coup if such an event is partially or wholly unrelated to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.
(D) There would be no way for the protection mechanism to differentiate between market fluctuations resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability.
(E) The protection mechanism would be purposely destroyed by political insurgents if they were able to infiltrate the government's fiscal affairs department.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Kaplan OE
The president of country Y is sure having a hard time of it, being shot at and all. No matter. The real issue here is this electronic market regulation gizmo that's supposed to help the country avoid a major economic disaster. Our job is to draw a conclusion about it.

There's a lot going on here, so let's recap: Roughly every 50 years, country Y experiences political instability. The reaction of average investors to such crises cannot be predicted, so a crisis leads to, or causes, uncertainty. Country Y has created an electronic protection mechanism for its financial market that relies on estimates of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators. The purpose of the mechanism is to avoid a major market selloff. The correct answer will draw an inference that logically connects the different ideas stated in the evidence. It's difficult to prephrase the correct answer here, so your best bet is to test the choices rigorously, looking for the one that absolutely must be true.

(A) goes too far in its inference that an attempt on the president's life will happen within 50 years. The 1992 attempt was only an example of the political instability that occurs roughly every 50 years, and the 50-year period was an average, not an absolute limit. Furthermore, even if there is an attempt on the president's life, it is unclear how investors will react because their behavior in such situations cannot be predicted in advance. For all we know, the market will go up and the mechanism will not be needed.

(B) goes beyond the scope of the argument. Whether investors perceive sudden political events positively or negatively isn't mentioned in the stimulus, so we can't infer that that perception makes any difference to the accuracy of the mechanism.

(C) draws a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. If political instability involves changes in corporate data and economic indicators, then the mechanism should work the way it is designed to work. But if the incident does not involve those elements, then the way the mechanism will work becomes unclear, because the behavior of investors will be unpredictable. (C) wins.

(D) This statement goes too far to be inferable. The mechanism might be able to differentiate
between various types of market fluctuations, even though it might not be able to trigger
appropriate responses to some of them.

(E) takes the argument far beyond its original scope. Nothing in the stimulus leads to a prediction
of what might happen to the protection mechanism in the event of political instability.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 280 [1], given: 8

 Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes e-GMAT Discount Codes EMPOWERgmat Discount Codes
TOEFL Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 1602

Kudos [?]: 600 [0], given: 40

Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Technology

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2011, 21:44
bschool83 wrote:
History has shown that severe and sudden political instability strikes country X roughly once every 50 years. The most recent example was the attempt on the President's life a few years ago. The reaction of average investors in country X to crisis situations in the country cannot be predicted in advance. The government's fiscal affairs department has introduced an electronic protection mechanism into the market in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged large-scale selloff. The mechanism is triggered in specific instances based on estimations of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the electronic protection mechanism?

a. Sometime within the next 50 years an attempt on the President's life will trigger the protection mechanism. - Goes beyond the scope

b. Whether the protection mechanism will function appropriately in response to a sudden political event depends on whether the event is seen by investors as positive or negative. - Nothing in passage suggests so.

c. It is unclear how well the protection mechanism would work in the event of a sudden political coup if such an event is partially or wholly unrelated to changes in corporate data and economic indicators. - Correct choice

d. There would be no way for the protection mechanism to differentiate between market fluctuations resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability. Extremely far fetched conclusion

e. The protection mechanism would be purposely destroyed by political insurgents if they were able to infiltrate the government's fiscal affairs department. - Irrelevant, nothing in passage suggests this.

_________________

Formula of Life -> Achievement/Potential = k * Happiness (where k is a constant)

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 600 [0], given: 40

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 387

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2011, 21:52
I would go with C as well.

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 84

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2011, 04:21
IMO C
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 84

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2011, 04:22
IMO C
_________________

Conquer the Hell and make it Haven. Brain is your hell and Success is your haven!

"Kudos" is significant part of GMAT prep. If you like it, you just click it

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 23

Intern
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2011, 05:48
IMO C
Whats OA?
_________________

Regards,
Vijendra Lakshmana Rao,
GMAT score target is 700

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

15 Jul 2011, 06:26
Based on the stimulus, there are three main references here: political instability, protection mechanism, and corporate data and economic indicators.

C best summarizes the facts above.

Also watch out for the tone, for e.g., D is too extreme to be an answer.'

OA is C

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 8

Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 22

Location: United States (AL)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2011, 01:53
+1 for C

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 22

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 232

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2011, 02:00
IMO C
Based on the evidence provided in the argument 'how well' protection mechanism will work if unrelated events occurs is unclear
_________________

-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 25

Manager
Status: Retaking next month
Affiliations: None
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 42

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V27
GPA: 3.01
WE: Sales (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2011, 02:57
I will go with C.

Kudos [?]: 182 [0], given: 42

Intern
Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Posts: 21

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2011, 20:13

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 144

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 15

GMAT Date: 10-21-2011

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2011, 21:40
**
bschool83 wrote:
History has shown that severe and sudden political instability strikes country Y roughly once every 50 years. The most recent example was the attempt on the president's life in 1992. The reaction of average investors in country Y to crisis situations in the country cannot be predicted in advance. The government's fiscal affairs department has introduced an electronic protection mechanism into the stock market of country Y in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged large-scale selloff. The mechanism is triggered in specific instances based on estimations of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the electronic protection mechanism?

(A) Sometime within the next 50 years an attempt on the president's life will trigger the protection mechanism.
(B) Whether the protection mechanism will function appropriately in response to a sudden political event depends on whether the event is seen by investors as positive or negative.
(C) It is unclear how well the protection mechanism would work in the event of a sudden political coup if such an event is partially or wholly unrelated to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.
(D) There would be no way for the protection mechanism to differentiate between market fluctuations resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability.
(E) The protection mechanism would be purposely destroyed by political insurgents if they were able to infiltrate the government's fiscal affairs department.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Kaplan OE
The president of country Y is sure having a hard time of it, being shot at and all. No matter. The real issue here is this electronic market regulation gizmo that's supposed to help the country avoid a major economic disaster. Our job is to draw a conclusion about it.

There's a lot going on here, so let's recap: Roughly every 50 years, country Y experiences political instability. The reaction of average investors to such crises cannot be predicted, so a crisis leads to, or causes, uncertainty. Country Y has created an electronic protection mechanism for its financial market that relies on estimates of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators. The purpose of the mechanism is to avoid a major market selloff. The correct answer will draw an inference that logically connects the different ideas stated in the evidence. It's difficult to prephrase the correct answer here, so your best bet is to test the choices rigorously, looking for the one that absolutely must be true.

(A) goes too far in its inference that an attempt on the president's life will happen within 50 years. The 1992 attempt was only an example of the political instability that occurs roughly every 50 years, and the 50-year period was an average, not an absolute limit. Furthermore, even if there is an attempt on the president's life, it is unclear how investors will react because their behavior in such situations cannot be predicted in advance. For all we know, the market will go up and the mechanism will not be needed.

(B) goes beyond the scope of the argument. Whether investors perceive sudden political events positively or negatively isn't mentioned in the stimulus, so we can't infer that that perception makes any difference to the accuracy of the mechanism.

(C) draws a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. If political instability involves changes in corporate data and economic indicators, then the mechanism should work the way it is designed to work. But if the incident does not involve those elements, then the way the mechanism will work becomes unclear, because the behavior of investors will be unpredictable. (C) wins.

(D) This statement goes too far to be inferable. The mechanism might be able to differentiate
between various types of market fluctuations, even though it might not be able to trigger
appropriate responses to some of them.

(E) takes the argument far beyond its original scope. Nothing in the stimulus leads to a prediction
of what might happen to the protection mechanism in the event of political instability.

Our subject: electronic protection mechanism
Premise/Basis: hard to predict investors' reactions to crisis situations in Ctry Y --> risk of prolonged large-scale sell-off --> put in place the electronic protection mechanism
Assumption: electronic protection mechanism may help prevent prolonged large-scale sell-off (BUT... mechanism is helpful only when average investors' reactions are caused by changes in corporate data and economic indicators.)

What happens when reactions are not in relation to changes in corporate data and economic indicators?? UNCLEAR!!

_________________

"The best day of your life is the one on which you decide your life is your own. No apologies or excuses. No one to lean on, rely on, or blame. The gift is yours - it is an amazing journey - and you alone are responsible for the quality of it. This is the day your life really begins." - Bob Moawab

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 15

Manager
Status: Target MBA
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 200

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 12

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2011, 07:45
bschool83 wrote:
History has shown that severe and sudden political instability strikes country Y roughly once every 50 years. The most recent example was the attempt on the president's life in 1992. The reaction of average investors in country Y to crisis situations in the country cannot be predicted in advance. The government's fiscal affairs department has introduced an electronic protection mechanism into the stock market of country Y in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged large-scale selloff. The mechanism is triggered in specific instances based on estimations of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the electronic protection mechanism?

(A) Sometime within the next 50 years an attempt on the president's life will trigger the protection mechanism.
(B) Whether the protection mechanism will function appropriately in response to a sudden political event depends on whether the event is seen by investors as positive or negative.
(C) It is unclear how well the protection mechanism would work in the event of a sudden political coup if such an event is partially or wholly unrelated to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.
(D) There would be no way for the protection mechanism to differentiate between market fluctuations resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability.
(E) The protection mechanism would be purposely destroyed by political insurgents if they were able to infiltrate the government's fiscal affairs department.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Kaplan OE
The president of country Y is sure having a hard time of it, being shot at and all. No matter. The real issue here is this electronic market regulation gizmo that's supposed to help the country avoid a major economic disaster. Our job is to draw a conclusion about it.

There's a lot going on here, so let's recap: Roughly every 50 years, country Y experiences political instability. The reaction of average investors to such crises cannot be predicted, so a crisis leads to, or causes, uncertainty. Country Y has created an electronic protection mechanism for its financial market that relies on estimates of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators. The purpose of the mechanism is to avoid a major market selloff. The correct answer will draw an inference that logically connects the different ideas stated in the evidence. It's difficult to prephrase the correct answer here, so your best bet is to test the choices rigorously, looking for the one that absolutely must be true.

(A) goes too far in its inference that an attempt on the president's life will happen within 50 years. The 1992 attempt was only an example of the political instability that occurs roughly every 50 years, and the 50-year period was an average, not an absolute limit. Furthermore, even if there is an attempt on the president's life, it is unclear how investors will react because their behavior in such situations cannot be predicted in advance. For all we know, the market will go up and the mechanism will not be needed.

(B) goes beyond the scope of the argument. Whether investors perceive sudden political events positively or negatively isn't mentioned in the stimulus, so we can't infer that that perception makes any difference to the accuracy of the mechanism.

(C) draws a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. If political instability involves changes in corporate data and economic indicators, then the mechanism should work the way it is designed to work. But if the incident does not involve those elements, then the way the mechanism will work becomes unclear, because the behavior of investors will be unpredictable. (C) wins.

(D) This statement goes too far to be inferable. The mechanism might be able to differentiate
between various types of market fluctuations, even though it might not be able to trigger
appropriate responses to some of them.

(E) takes the argument far beyond its original scope. Nothing in the stimulus leads to a prediction
of what might happen to the protection mechanism in the event of political instability.

It's a tough one. It took me 2:21 minutes to reach to an answer, which was C
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
GM.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 12

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10125

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: History has shown that severe and sudden political [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2015, 10:37
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Re: History has shown that severe and sudden political [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2017, 01:26
Hi Why is D wrong?

As per the stimulus, it's mentioned that the algo works if changes in the economic indicators and corporate data are fed into it, then D talks about the reasons of these changes. There will actually be no way to determine what caused the above changes. So D seems inferable from this logic.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2015
Posts: 108

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 51

Location: Thailand
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GMAT 1: 550 Q37 V28
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 650 Q44 V35
GMAT 4: 680 Q49 V32
GMAT 5: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.33
Re: History has shown that severe and sudden political [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2017, 02:19
bschool83 wrote:
History has shown that severe and sudden political instability strikes country Y roughly once every 50 years. The most recent example was the attempt on the president's life in 1992. The reaction of average investors in country Y to crisis situations in the country cannot be predicted in advance. The government's fiscal affairs department has introduced an electronic protection mechanism into the stock market of country Y in the hopes of avoiding a prolonged large-scale selloff. The mechanism is triggered in specific instances based on estimations of how average investors will react to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.

If the statements above are true, which of the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the electronic protection mechanism?

(A) Sometime within the next 50 years an attempt on the president's life will trigger the protection mechanism.
(B) Whether the protection mechanism will function appropriately in response to a sudden political event depends on whether the event is seen by investors as positive or negative.
(C) It is unclear how well the protection mechanism would work in the event of a sudden political coup if such an event is partially or wholly unrelated to changes in corporate data and economic indicators.
(D) There would be no way for the protection mechanism to differentiate between market fluctuations resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability.
(E) The protection mechanism would be purposely destroyed by political insurgents if they were able to infiltrate the government's fiscal affairs department.

This is an inference question... there are there things I keep in mind for wrong answers 1) answers should not be extreme 2) answers should be based on evidence provided within the text 3) answers should be drawn from premises.

A) no information regarding future assassination attempts was present within the stimulus - clearly the (2) case
B) 'seen by investors' this is a tricky choice and is in line with (2) and (3)... the stimulus talks about reactions not perceptions.
D) this answer clearly goes in line with (1) and (3) because we can't claim there is ABSOLUTELY no way
E) this answer clearly goes in line with (1) would be destroyed? how can we tell? and (2) the stimulus does not mention anything regarding infiltration

C) is the correct answer. Since the mechanism depends on corporate and economic indicators, if an event is unrelated to those indicators we can't truly say what the market reactions would be, thus, we can't truly say what the mechanism would do.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 151 [0], given: 51

Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3198

Kudos [?]: 3515 [1], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: History has shown that severe and sudden political [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2017, 11:53
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
aman.tomar wrote:
Hi Why is D wrong?

As per the stimulus, it's mentioned that the algo works if changes in the economic indicators and corporate data are fed into it, then D talks about the reasons of these changes. There will actually be no way to determine what caused the above changes. So D seems inferable from this logic.

There is nothing in the passage that suggests that the system is incapable (or capable) of differentiating between market fluctuation resulting from economic factors and those that are caused by political instability. If you mention which sentence in the passage you think leads to this conclusion, then we may discuss further on the same.

Kudos [?]: 3515 [1], given: 22

Re: History has shown that severe and sudden political   [#permalink] 01 Jan 2017, 11:53
Display posts from previous: Sort by