Political theorist: Even with the best spies, area experts, and satell

E for me..

a,c,d- clear out of scope.
b- though it says leaders who are good at decisions are also good at intuitive decisions, but donot states what they do in case on lack in current info.
thus e is best as it mentions the required details

Hi Experts,
Can you please suggest why we choose E over B?

Hi,
I will try to explain option B with simple example :
If a high rank police Judge make judgement based on intuition does't mean intuition is the best way to make judgement by anyone. The reason the high ranked judges make good judgement by intuition because they have valuable experience.

So here option B doesn't provide any support to the reasoning , whereas Option E clearly mentions the reason to support the argument.

I agree with the logic of option E, but don't you think that two portions of the sentence that I boldfaced seem extremely redundant and tautologic? I understand it is not an SC question, but still... I eliminated option E just because of this bizzare tautology.

A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete, since intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information

The second boldfaced portion does sound a bit redundant, but it serves a purpose. Without it, we only know that intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience... okay, great, but can intuitive judgment still produce good decisions when information is incomplete? The second boldfaced portion explicitly tells us that intuitive judgment CAN produce good decisions even when information is incomplete.

It might not sound great, but it completes the argument. I hope that helps!

Political theorist: Even with the best spies, area experts, and satellite surveillance, foreign policy assessments can still lack important information. In such circumstances intuitive judgment is vital. A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete, since __________.

From the premise we can understand that foreign policy assessments lack some information and in situations like these, intuitive judgment is vital.

A national leader with "intuitive" judgment can make good decisions when the information is incomplete.

Now we need to give a reason why we think so?

Which of the following, if true, most logically completes the argument?

(A) the central reason for failure in foreign policy decision making is the absence of critical information [Out of Scope: We need to give a reason why a leader with good judgment can help when the information is incomplete.]

(B) those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment[Okay, so this option confused me a bit. But here is my reason for eliminating it - the premise already mentions that a leader with intuition judgment makes a good decision, so this option felt as if it is going round and round, providing the same information. Leaders --> good judgment --> good decision --> hence good judgment. This did not make much sense, so I eliminated it. (other opinions on this are welcome )]
(C) both intuitive judgment and good information are required for sound decision making [the focus here is intuitive judgment and not both good information and judgment,
hence we can eliminate this.]
(D) good foreign policy decisions often lead to improved methods of gathering information [we are not interested in knowing if good policy decision can improve gathering information - eliminated.]
(E) intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information[This made more sense Leaders -->
good judgment --> good decision(supported by a reason - past experience). This option logically tells us that pass experience helps in making good decisions based on intuitive judgment, which will fill the gaps in information, thus, these leaders can be helpful in policy assessment.]

Hi GMATNinja,
In option e, don't we are holding an assumption that national leaders have enough past experience. If the leader lacks experience, the argument entirely breaks down to be true. Please explain if I am missing anything in my understanding?

Sure, it might technically be possible for a leader to have such "intuitive judgment" without sufficient past experience. But, with choice (E), the passage suggests that such intuitive judgment is based on past experience and that "a national leader with such judgment" would have such past experience.

The correct answer does not have to make the argument air-tight. Remember, we are looking for an answer choice that most logically completes the argument.

Question Type : Complete the passage, hence we need to find a possible conclusion from the premises in the passage.

Premise 1: Lack of information still persists even after using the best of the information available for decision making in the case of foreign policy assessments.

Premise 2: Intuitive Judgement is vital for decision making, due to lack of complete information.

Conclusion: A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete, since __________

Analysis: The National leader can make good decisions, even though information is incomplete, if the national leader has experience of handling such situations in his past or has a track record of making good decisions based on his intuitions. Maybe National leaders are mentored by leaders who made good decisions using their intuition.

The correct answer has to talk about the National leaders ability to use intuitions for good decision making either through training in his past or by experience.

(A) the central reason for failure in foreign policy decision making is the absence of critical information - Totally tangent to the passage. Incorrect
(B) those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment - Very close however the good decisions made by the leaders are made using their intuition?, even though the leader have good intuitive judgement. Quite Ambiguous - Good enough to be Incorrect.
(C) both intuitive judgment and good information are required for sound decision making - Sounds like a premise rather than a conclusive statement. Incorrect.
(D) good foreign policy decisions often lead to improved methods of gathering information - Similar to C. Incorrect
(E) intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information - Exactly as per our analysis. Correct.

GMATNinja: I absolutely agree with the rationale for the choice E. Kindly clarify me on my approach:
I approached this question in a way where I thought that the conclusion of the question is: In such circumstances intuitive judgment is vital
I backed my conclusion by asking myself the why question for it, and the answer to it is: BECAUSE A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete, since __________.
As per my understanding I've to complete the claim with the best possible premise.

Kindly correct, wherever I'm wrong.

The conclusion is: "A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete."

In general, it's a really, really bad idea to add words like "because" as you're reading. Instead, analyze the passage precisely as it's been written. In this case, the author is making a claim about what a national leader with intuitive judgment can do. Here's another way of breaking this down:

• Foreign policy assessments can lack important information.
• In such circumstances intuitive judgment is vital.
• Since _________________________________________...
• ...A national leader with such judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is complete.

Thinking about it more simply, the point of this argument is to tell us what kind of national leader should make these decisions. The point isn't to tell us that, generally speaking, intuitive judgment is vital. If the author wanted to use "a national leader" as an example of the general benefit of intuitive judgment, the author would have used different wording to make that purpose clear.

I hope this helps!

It is because of the missing congruence, for ex. If 'X' implies 'Y' then not necessarily 'Y' must imply 'X' ...
("intuitive judgement" implies => "Good Foreign Policy leader") True
("Good Foreign Policy leader" implies => "intuitive judgement") Not Sure

Evaluating option B:
The whole argument revolves around having intuitive judgement as a vital virtue of a Foreign Policy leader But, nowhere it states that all Foreign Policy leaders will definitely have "intuitive judgement" as a virtue by default. So, this is new information that we are supplying to the author's text. (which we can't fact check)

But option E, on the other hand, offers an explanation on why the quality of "intuitive judgement" would work (because of past experiences angle), an explanation as such is plausible and is also strengthening the argument of the author. (So, we can rely on Option E that way)