mSKR
Any 2nd opinion on option B?
What if some countries continue to export way much higher than import such that the strategy is not worth follow . Then in this case , even export remains stable , it is not good for economy as the country could be in loss with time.
or we should ignore B because we don't care how they made this export stable. it is worth to follow the strategy
Please give your opinion
Usually I don't ignore such options when the manner that how conclusion is achieved could be be important .
btw, i rejected option D - was my 2nd preference.
-> it went from ups and downs but finally it maintained its percentage share. So it is worth noting how these 4 countries managed in 30 years.
Moreover it is not important how much percentage they maintained these years. The key point is they didn't go bankrupt
So I assume this option is worth strengthening the conclusion instead of weakening.
please share your opinion on my thinking for option B and D.
GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep AnthonyRitz BrightOutlookJenn GMATNinjaThere is no way that B could work here, but I think the problem is that you're not sufficiently focused on the stated conclusion. You're speculating, and that's just not what the GMAT is about.
Specifically, the question asks us to consider
Quote:
the suitability of those four countries as models in the sense described.
What "sense" is that? The sense in which
Quote:
These countries can therefore serve as models for those countries that wish to keep their share of the global export trade stable over the years. [emphasis added]
The key word here is
export. Should countries in the real world care about their imports? ... Maybe? Who knows? I'm not an economist, and I'm not their mom.
But also: Who cares? We don't live in the real world. We live in GMAT-land. The argument tells us that exports are all that matters! And in GMAT-land we only care about whatever the argument tells us to care about.
As a result, we simply don't care about any countries that, as B describes, are
Quote:
less concerned with exports alone than with the balance between exports and imports.
So that's why B is wrong.
Your understanding of D was also incorrect. You said that
Quote:
it is not important how much percentage they maintained these years.
Yes it is! The conclusion is literally about these countries' exports'
stability.
You also said that
Quote:
The key point is they didn't go bankrupt
No it isn't! The key point is that these countries' exports
were not stable! They went up and back down, or down and back up, or generally anywhere but "flat and consistent."
Again you seem to care about some phantom point about what's good for the countries or their economies or something irrelevant like that. We're not here to show off our macroeconomics skillz! We're here to address the stated arguments, those arguments' conclusions, and the gaps in those arguments' reasoning leading up to those conclusions. That's it.
The conclusion was that these countries are good models of stability in exports. But D says that they weren't -- their exports went up and down. That's a weakener, and the one and only right answer. Period.