It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 13:01

### 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

# If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y,

Author Message
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y, [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 03:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 253

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 06:18
C...

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 06:48
C or E..............I'm confused!

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 253

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 07:02
E is not affirmative enough, especially with the word "may"

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 387

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

Location: Boston, MA

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 08:28
E.

We only know that if the do NOT intervene, then Y will fall to the enemy.

If they DO intervene, then Y may or may not fall to the enemy.

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1436

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Schools: Chicago Booth '11

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 15:05
I am with E too, we can't really conclude anything from the statement except that it has a chance of not falling, but it also has a chance of falling

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 12

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 292

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

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 15:10
I go with E as well. Mostly because it is possible that country X only has three soldiers...which gives them only a slightly better chance, and will then make sure that country X also falls under enemy rule...No info about country X...maybe country X is the invader

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

Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Posts: 31

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

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 18:11
I'd go with D.
Question is "most logically follows from the statement". Statement says that, if X doesn't intervene Y then all region will definitely fall.... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, but the statemant says will definitely. So most logically, in my opinion, we should turn everythig around, i.e. if X intervenes Y, that all region will definitely not fall... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, we don't know, but we are asked to follow the logic flow of the statement which suggests D.
What's the OA?

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

Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 18:39
linau wrote:
I'd go with D.
Question is "most logically follows from the statement". Statement says that, if X doesn't intervene Y then all region will definitely fall.... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, but the statemant says will definitely. So most logically, in my opinion, we should turn everythig around, i.e. if X intervenes Y, that all region will definitely not fall... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, we don't know, but we are asked to follow the logic flow of the statement which suggests D.
What's the OA?

This actually doesn't work. You cannot conclude the negative of a conditional logically follows from the conditional. If A, then B does not mean if not A, then not B. The only thing you can logically conclude is the contrapositive - if not B, then not A. In this case, I think that would be something like "If the whole region is definitely not going to fall under enemy influence, then Country X will have to intervene." Doesn't help us find an answer though, since it asks for if not A, then what?

I'd say the answer is E.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 21:37
klong009 wrote:
linau wrote:
I'd go with D.
Question is "most logically follows from the statement". Statement says that, if X doesn't intervene Y then all region will definitely fall.... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, but the statemant says will definitely. So most logically, in my opinion, we should turn everythig around, i.e. if X intervenes Y, that all region will definitely not fall... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, we don't know, but we are asked to follow the logic flow of the statement which suggests D.
What's the OA?

This actually doesn't work. You cannot conclude the negative of a conditional logically follows from the conditional. If A, then B does not mean if not A, then not B. The only thing you can logically conclude is the contrapositive - if not B, then not A. In this case, I think that would be something like "If the whole region is definitely not going to fall under enemy influence, then Country X will have to intervene." Doesn't help us find an answer though, since it asks for if not A, then what?

I'd say the answer is E.

How is E different from C?

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 21:53
aurobindo wrote:
klong009 wrote:
linau wrote:
I'd go with D.
Question is "most logically follows from the statement". Statement says that, if X doesn't intervene Y then all region will definitely fall.... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, but the statemant says will definitely. So most logically, in my opinion, we should turn everythig around, i.e. if X intervenes Y, that all region will definitely not fall... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, we don't know, but we are asked to follow the logic flow of the statement which suggests D.
What's the OA?

This actually doesn't work. You cannot conclude the negative of a conditional logically follows from the conditional. If A, then B does not mean if not A, then not B. The only thing you can logically conclude is the contrapositive - if not B, then not A. In this case, I think that would be something like "If the whole region is definitely not going to fall under enemy influence, then Country X will have to intervene." Doesn't help us find an answer though, since it asks for if not A, then what?

I'd say the answer is E.

How is E different from C?

C - Will probably not fall under enemy influence

E - May or may not fall under enemy influence

C suggests that it is more likely that the region won't fall under enemy influence. We don't know that, and we can't assume it. We have no information about "probably."

E doesn't imply that one outcome (falling or not falling) is more likely than the other. That's all we can know - if County X intervenes, the region may or may not fall. We can't logically conclude any of the other answers.

Does that help?

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2007, 21:55
klong009 wrote:
aurobindo wrote:
klong009 wrote:
linau wrote:
I'd go with D.
Question is "most logically follows from the statement". Statement says that, if X doesn't intervene Y then all region will definitely fall.... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, but the statemant says will definitely. So most logically, in my opinion, we should turn everythig around, i.e. if X intervenes Y, that all region will definitely not fall... Yes, it might, it might not, might probably, we don't know, but we are asked to follow the logic flow of the statement which suggests D.
What's the OA?

This actually doesn't work. You cannot conclude the negative of a conditional logically follows from the conditional. If A, then B does not mean if not A, then not B. The only thing you can logically conclude is the contrapositive - if not B, then not A. In this case, I think that would be something like "If the whole region is definitely not going to fall under enemy influence, then Country X will have to intervene." Doesn't help us find an answer though, since it asks for if not A, then what?

I'd say the answer is E.

How is E different from C?

C - Will probably not fall under enemy influence

E - May or may not fall under enemy influence

C suggests that it is more likely that the region won't fall under enemy influence. We don't know that, and we can't assume it. We have no information about "probably."

E doesn't imply that one outcome (falling or not falling) is more likely than the other. That's all we can know - if County X intervenes, the region may or may not fall. We can't logically conclude any of the other answers.

Does that help?

Thanks Klong.

OA is E.

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 166

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

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2007, 13:00
Ya im not surprised its E. We can infer anything about the probibility of it falling, and therefore it must be something neutral, like "may or may not"

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

Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 240

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

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2007, 10:37
'E' is broader statement than 'C'. Therefore greater chances to be true.

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

VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1367

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2007, 11:08
If A = always doing something
then non A = not doing something sometimes

If A = never doing something
then non A = doing something sometimes

If A = doing something sometimes
then non A = never doing something

If A = not doing something sometimes
then non A = always doing something

Courtesy HongHu's post from the stickies....

E it is

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2007, 02:43
trivikram wrote:
If A = always doing something
then non A = not doing something sometimes

If A = never doing something
then non A = doing something sometimes

If A = doing something sometimes
then non A = never doing something

If A = not doing something sometimes
then non A = always doing something

Courtesy HongHu's post from the stickies....

E it is

Vikky, can you please elaborate on how you applied this logic in the above question?

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1367

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2007, 05:39
aurobindo wrote:
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

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

This is of the the type

Y if and only if X
This is the equivalent of: If X then Y, AND if Y then X. Also, if non X then non Y. If non Y then non X

So we are now asked if non X then non Y

But here Y is the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence

so non Y is apply the rule from my previous post.

If A = always doing something
then non A = not doing something sometimes

So non Y is not falling definetely under enemy influence some times..

E is the closest representation.

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2007, 06:22
trivikram wrote:
aurobindo wrote:
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

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

This is of the the type

Y if and only if X
This is the equivalent of: If X then Y, AND if Y then X. Also, if non X then non Y. If non Y then non X

So we are now asked if non X then non Y

But here Y is the whole region will definitely fall under enemy influence

so non Y is apply the rule from my previous post.

If A = always doing something
then non A = not doing something sometimes

So non Y is not falling definetely under enemy influence some times..

E is the closest representation.

Or is it of "Y unless X" structure ?

Definitely fall under enemy influence unless military intervention

"Y unless X" structure means Non X then Y, and Non Y then X

X = Definitely fall under enemy influence
Y = Military intervention

If we go by Non X then Y, structure:

Non X = some times not falling under enemy influence

Hence the option E is the answer.

Is my understanding right?

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 4

Re: CR: Enemy influence   [#permalink] 26 Feb 2007, 06:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# If Country X does not intervene militarily in Country Y,

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.