If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whol

Question

If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence.

It most logically follows from the statement above that, if Country X does intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region

(A) Will definitely fall under enemy influence

(B) Will probably fall under enemy influence

(C) Will probably not fall under enemy influence

(D) Will definitely not fall under enemy influence

(E) May or may not fall under enemy influence

azhrhasan · Answer

No intervention leads to enemy influence

does not mean that intervention will not lead to enemy influence.

IMO E, may or may not lead to enemy influence

2794Aditya · Answer

I have opted for option C.

May of may not fall under enemy influence includes the probability of not falling under the enemy influence. Why is "probably not fall under enemy influence" false when a probability it self may or may not true ?

Could anybody explain ?

azhrhasan · Answer

If C is correct as per your logic, Then the same logic applies to B and B has to be correct as well. There's only 1 answer though.

Two reasons why B&C are incorrect:
1- They point to only 1 side of the story. It doesn't explicitly state the other side.
2- Since the tone of the question is decisive, the tone of the answer shall also be decisive.

2794Aditya · Answer

Oh yes!
I haven't paid attention to this. The concept of tone of the question is surely a thing I learnt here. 
Thank you azhrhasan

Posted from my mobile device

ArupRS · Answer

2794Aditya  : please go thru the concepts of necessary and sufficient conditions in power score CR Bible.

Regards,
Arup Sarkar

Posted from my mobile device

jrk23 · Answer

If A--> B

Than Not B--> Not A.(Always sure)

We can't say with surety that

Not A ---> Not B

That is why "e" is correct.

CEdward · Answer

In my view, this is a case of necessary versus sufficient. 
We know that Country X's not intervening means the whole region WILL DEFINITELY FALL. But, this does not imply that Country X's intervening in and of itself WILL PREVENT the fall under enemy influence. In other words, it may be NECESSARY for Country X to intervene, but not SUFFICIENT because there may be other factors that are required to prevent the fall of the region.

If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence.

It most logically follows from the statement above that, if Country X does intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region

(A) Will definitely fall under enemy influence X

(B) Will probably fall under enemy influence X

(C) Will probably not fall under enemy influence X

(D) Will definitely not fall under enemy influence X

(E) May or may not fall under enemy influence CORRECT

unraveled · Answer

If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence.

It most logically follows from the statement above that, if Country X does intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whole region

(A) Will  definitely fall  under enemy influence - WRONG. Not at all.

(B) Will  probably fall  under enemy influence - WRONG. Falling is out of context under intervention situation.

(C) Will  probably not fall  under enemy influence - WRONG. Covers only a part of the inference. 2nd best.

(D) Will  definitely not fall  under enemy influence - WRONG. Absolutely wrong.

(E) May or may not fall under enemy influence. - CORRECT. If military intervention happens then X may win over enemy, leaving no influence over Y. If X doesn't win then there is influence. Hence this is the best choice we have.

Answer E.

napolean92728 · Answer

The correct answer is:  (E) May or may not fall under enemy influence

Reasoning: 
The original statement is:
 
This is a  conditional statement  of the form:
 
We are being asked what can be logically concluded  if A (Country X  does  intervene) .
This is the  inverse  of the original conditional. In logic, the inverse of a conditional is  not logically equivalent  to the original. That is:
 
 Original:  If ~A → B  
 Inverse:  If A → ~B?  ←  Not logically valid  based on original  
So,  we cannot conclude with certainty  what happens if Country X does intervene — maybe the region will fall under enemy influence, maybe it won’t.
Thus, the only logical conclusion is:

Why the other options are wrong: 
 
  (A) Will definitely fall under enemy influence 
 → Illogical, because the statement said that  without  intervention, the region  definitely  falls. It doesn't follow that  with  intervention, the result is the same. 
  (B) Will probably fall under enemy influence 
 → Also not supported. There is no probabilistic claim in the original statement. "Probably" introduces speculation not justified by the original logic. 
  (C) Will probably not fall under enemy influence 
 → Again, speculation. The original statement doesn't allow any probabilistic conclusion about what happens with intervention. 
  (D) Will definitely not fall under enemy influence 
 → This would be the  contrapositive  if the original statement were "If the region does not fall under enemy influence, then Country X intervened." But we weren’t given that. So we cannot assert this with certainty.

jonatasjun · Answer

Is this type of question still being asked on the gmat?

If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whol

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

If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, then the whol

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