Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 05:03 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 05:03

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 92912
Own Kudos [?]: 618923 [1]
Given Kudos: 81595
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2022
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [2]
Given Kudos: 35
Location: Italy
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2021
Posts: 228
Own Kudos [?]: 192 [1]
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Turkey
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2022
Posts: 94
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I think its C

As it gives another reason for Partha to leave Baltia.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2019
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 154 [1]
Given Kudos: 155
Location: Nepal
Schools: Tuck '23
GMAT 1: 420 Q33 V15
GMAT 2: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q47 V31
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
1
Kudos
IMO C

Conclusion: without Cardena's aid to Baltia's resistance fighters, Partha would not have withdrawn.
Question stem: find a weaker
Option C states that Partha Government might have decided to move on as its no longer serves the purpose.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2021
Posts: 164
Own Kudos [?]: 92 [0]
Given Kudos: 168
Location: India
WE:Corporate Finance (Accounting)
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
If we look at the linkages of the paragraph --> We can solve this question easily.

What is the assertion of the Diplomats ?

WITHOUT Cardena's aid to Baltia's resistance fighters, Partha would not have withdrawn.

Why does the Diplomats feel so ?

The country of Cardena began shipping mules to Baltia's resistance fighters to facilitate the transport of weapons across Baltia's mountains to the battle areas

----------------------
CRUX:-

Since the country of Cardena provided support to Baltia's resistance hence diplomats feel that Partha withdrew their troops.
Hence if the Cardena had not provided the aid , Partha would not have withdrawn.

-----------------------------
Weaken the assertion of the Diplomats:-

We need to find a new INF, which will tell us that it was some other reason that lead to the withdrawal of the troops by Partha.

Choice C clearly stands out and hence is the correct answer.

Thanks
Feedback Appreciated.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
Hi team, Could someone explain better why B doesn't also weaken?


The passage talks about the shipments this year, while option B talks about shipments of the past year.

"During the past year, Cardena shipped weapons and food, as well as mules, to resistance fighters in Baltia."

If Cardena also provided shipment in the past year, Partha could have withdrawn before this year if there was no value in fighting right?


Regards.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2021
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Goizueta '25
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V27
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
Gio96 wrote:
Hi team, Could someone explain better why B doesn't also weaken?


The passage talks about the shipments this year, while option B talks about shipments of the past year.

"During the past year, Cardena shipped weapons and food, as well as mules, to resistance fighters in Baltia."

If Cardena also provided shipment in the past year, Partha could have withdrawn before this year if there was no value in fighting right?


Regards.


Even I have the same question. As for answer choice C, Even if the government decided that their national interests are not being fulfilled, does this mean because of this decision they withdrew their troops?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Send PM
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
pratiksha1998 wrote:
Gio96 wrote:
Hi team, Could someone explain better why B doesn't also weaken?


The passage talks about the shipments this year, while option B talks about shipments of the past year.

"During the past year, Cardena shipped weapons and food, as well as mules, to resistance fighters in Baltia."

If Cardena also provided shipment in the past year, Partha could have withdrawn before this year if there was no value in fighting right?


Regards.


Even I have the same question. As for answer choice C, Even if the government decided that their national interests are not being fulfilled, does this mean because of this decision they withdrew their troops?


Searching on Internet, the meaning of past year is not the same as last year, but Past year means the 365 days preceding today. For example, if it was 14th Feb, 2016 today, then the past year would mean the time between 15th Feb, 2015 and 14th Feb, 2016.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Partha has withdrawn its troops from Baltia after five years of occupa [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne