Many Ann: Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the

Question

Many Ann:  Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the respect of other countries and makes a country admirable.

Inez:  There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength. If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.

Which one of the following is a presupposition that underlies Inez' argument?

(A) At least one country is admirable
(B) Countries cannot be both strong and moral
(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries
(D) The citizens of any country does is good
(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary

VeritasPrepBrandon · Answer

Great question. Inez is presupposing the truth of one of the following answer choices in her argument, according to the question stem. Well, her argument states that you should judge a country by the morality of its actions. This presupposes that there is some way to gauge the "morality" of a country's actions. C hits this mark. If you cannot assign moral weight to the actions of countries, then there is no way to judge a country by the morality of its actions.

adityadon · Answer

) At least one country is admirable -  irrelevant , no such example is given

(B) Countries cannot be both strong and moral -  not necessary , according to second person , country needs to be moral , it could be strong as well , but it must be moral.

(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries -  yes , negate this and it will break second persons statement. If you cant assign moral weight to actions , then how you will decide the country is moral or not ? so hence this is assumption.

(D) The citizens of any country does is good -  irrelevant

(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary -  we are not discussing about imposing morality.

ThisGuyGetsIt · Answer

Many Ann: Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the respect of other countries and makes a country admirable.

Inez: There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength. If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.

Which one of the following is a presupposition that underlies Inez' argument?

(A) At least one country is admirable
Incorrect - This isn't even an assumption, this is a quasi fact that doesn't affect the argument above.

(B) Countries cannot be both strong and moral
Incorrect - This is not a necessary assumption for Inez to come to his/her conclusion.

(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries
Correct - If a country is to be judged by its morality, then one must be able to assess the moral weight of a country. Inez must assume this in order to make his/her claim. Furthermore, if you negate this assumption, Inez's argument falls apart.

(D) The citizens of any country does is good
Incorrect - What is this even saying? Regardless, it discusses the actions of individuals within the country, not the country itself.

(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary
Incorrect - This does not need to be assumed for Inez to make his/her claim. This is the type of incorrect answer that plays on the test takers opinions on world affairs.

Kudos if my post was helpful! 8-)

0ld · Answer

Why option B is incorrect ?

Author: There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. 
(B) : Countries cannot be both strong and moral

Here author is presupposition, if some strong country was wrong in the past. They will remain morally corrupt.

gandhigauravz · Answer

He says there are many examples (which means not all the examples) in history...meanin
This means that he doesnt believe that all the strong counties are immoral. Hence, b is incorrect.

bvg · Answer

I think B can be right because of this statement, "We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength. " That means Inez meant that, even if we judge a country by its strength, the judgement comes out to be wrong. Because countries with strength aren't perceived to be respectable and admiring.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Compare with the following; you may probably realise the fallacy in your argument:

A person's intelligence should be judged by how he plays chess, not by how he does arithmetic. Does this imply that a person who plays chess well cannot also do maths well?

speedrevision37 · Answer

Many Ann: Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the respect of other countries and makes a country admirable.

Inez: There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength. If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.

Which one of the following is a presupposition that underlies Inez' argument?

(A) At least one country is admirable
(B) Countries cannot be both strong and moral
(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries
(D) The citizens of any country does is good
(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary

IMO B is wrong because as per Inez's argument, "we should judge a country by its morality of its actions not by its strength", she is talking about the basis of judging the country. The country may or may not have both properties simultaneously, however, they should not be judged based on those criteria.
Option c clearly talks about the conclusion, "If actions are morally good, country is admirable".

nsdl1985 · Answer

(A) At least one country is admirable-  We are not here to compare and judge Ann and Inez's statements as a third party and then conclude what sounds good. Nope. Out of scope.  
(B) Countries cannot be both strong and moral-  Not necessarily true. As Inez says, in history there were many examples of strong countries acting atrocious and not examples of all strong countries acting atrocious. So there may be some countries who are strong and as well as morally good.   
(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries.  Correct.  
(D) The citizens of any country does is good-  Donno what it states. But actions of citizens do not matter here. 
(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary 
 Irrelevant

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Many Ann: Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the

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

Many Ann: Our country should above all, be strong. Strength gains the

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