It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to

ok.. here's how..

A (united states ) does B (sells plutonium) but if A doesnt, then C (some other contry) will do B. which means ultimately the country would get plutonium.

similarly D says if X ( the defendent) dint to Y (rob the house ) then Z (someone else ) would have done Y (ron the house). Which implies, ultimately the house would have been robbed..

A -- > B if not A then C -->B in both cases

hope it helps!

WOW for explaination, thanks a lot g8 explanation.

always welcome to help you guys out

New Gmat club project
Click here

Our statement : Can not do X . But if You don’t do X, others would do X


(A) It is true that it is against the police department’s policy to negotiate with kidnappers. But if the police want to prevent loss of life, they must negotiate in some cases.
can not do X. But if want Y, they must X
Y= prevent loss of life. This is new information
Wrong

(B) It is true that it is illegal to refuse to register for military service. But there is a long tradition in the United States of conscientious objection to serving in the armed forces.
Cant not do X. In USA already have done X
Wrong: action has not been done yet. And no mention about others.

(C) It is true that it is illegal for a government official to participate in a transaction in which there is an apparent conflict of interest. But if the facts are examined carefully, it will clearly be seen that there was no actual conflict of interest in the defendant’s case.
Can not X. Analsysis says it is really not X
Not match with our statement. No match about others.

(D) It is true that it is against the law to burglarize people’s homes. But someone else certainly would have burglarized that house if the defendant had not done so first.
Can not do X. if defendant don’t do X , others would have done X

Matches with our statement.

(E) It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings. But there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.
Can not do X. but has been done. Wrong

It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons. – To sell plutonium to specific kinds of countries is illegal. (When I read the phrase “It is true that” I get a sense that the author perhaps doesn’t agree with what follows.)

But if United States companies do not do so, companies in other countries will. – “do not do so” – do what? do not sell plutonium to those countries. Overall, if US companies don’t sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons, companies in other countries will sell plutonium to those countries.
Why is the word “but” there at the beginning? Sure, it expresses a contrast. But, what is the contrast?
Contrast: On the one hand doing a particular thing is illegal. On the other, if US companies don’t do it, others will. (Although illegal, someone or the other will do.)




Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?

So perhaps the answer choices will also be arguments. We need to select an argument whose reasoning structure is similar to the structure of the above argument.

What is the reasoning structure of the above argument?
While X is against the law, if they don’t do X someone else will.

Framework:
While going through the answer choices, I’ll first understand their reasoning structures and then compare them with the structure of the above argument.




(A) It is true that it is against the police department’s policy to negotiate with kidnappers. But if the police want to prevent loss of life, they must negotiate in some cases.
Incorrect.
Reasoning structure: Doing X is against policy. But, in some cases to save lives they must go against the policy.
This answer choice also presents a contrast. The contrast here relates to going against a policy for the greater good (saving lives). The argument is not similar to the above one.

(B) It is true that it is illegal to refuse to register for military service. But there is a long tradition in the United States of conscientious objection to serving in the armed forces.
Incorrect.
Reasoning structure: To refuse something is Illegal, but there’s been a tradition to object to it.

1. The tradition anyway has been to ‘object’ and not necessarily to ‘refuse’. e.g. I could object to my wife shopping, but I might not refuse.
2. Even if don’t worry about that nuance, the structure essentially is: Doing X is illegal, but people have been doing it. This logic is not similar to that of the above argument.

(C) It is true that it is illegal for a government official to participate in a transaction in which there is an apparent conflict of interest. But if the facts are examined carefully, it will clearly be seen that there was no actual conflict of interest in the defendant’s case.
Incorrect.
Reasoning structure: For government officials to do X is illegal, but in this case, the official did not do X.
Not the same.

(D) It is true that it is against the law to burglarize people’s homes. But someone else certainly would have burglarized that house if the defendant had not done so first.
Correct.
Reasoning structure: X is illegal. But had this guy not done it, someone else would have.
Matches. The logic is similar.

(E) It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings. But there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.
Incorrect.
Reasoning structure: There is a policy in place. But, many people do not follow it.
This structure is not similar to main argument’s.

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.