We are looking for a statement that would explain the claim that "A national leader with [intuitive] judgment can make good decisions about foreign policy even when current information is incomplete." In other words, if a national leader has intuitive judgment, why should he/she be able to make good foreign policy decisions even when current information is incomplete?


At best, this information might be consistent with the author's claim, showing that there might be a correlation between having intuitive judgment and making good f.p. decisions (if we trust the rankings), but it certainly doesn't explain WHY a national leader with intuitive judgment would be able to make good f.p. decisions even when current information is incomplete.


Choice (E), on the other hand, does offer such an explanation. Why can national leaders with intuitive judgment make good f.p. decisions even when current information is incomplete?--because their intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important information gaps.

(E) is the best choice.
_________________

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 __________.

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- Incorrect -If this is true , then even a leader with intuitive judgment will not be able to make good decisions
B. those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment- this does not explain what such leaders do in case assessments lack complete information
C. both intuitive judgment and good information are required for sound decision making- Incorrect- If this is true , then even a leader with intuitive judgment will not be able to make good decisions
D. good foreign policy decisions often lead to improved methods of gathering information – Incorrect-this does not explain what such leaders do in case assessments lack complete information
E. intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information – Correct

Answer E
_________________

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.
_________________

(A) the central reason for failure in foreign policy decision making is the absence of critical information

(B) those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment

(C) both intuitive judgment and good information are required for sound decision making

(D) good foreign policy decisions often lead to improved methods of gathering information

(E) intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information

Only answer choice (E) helps us saying that in absence of complete information, intuitive judgement based on past experience can get us through.
_________________

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!
_________________

is this an inference question?

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 __________.

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 X
-we already know this (at least the latter part of the choice)…it’s still certainly possible that foreign policy failures can happen, but this is not really consistent with the directionality of the paragraph…we’re really trying to answer the question of why despite the absence of complete information are good decisions nevertheless still made…

(B) those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment X
-only provides us with evidence that intuitive judgement supports decision making…the gap in the argument remains

(C) both intuitive judgment and good information are required for sound decision making X
-fair…but why is it that when info is incomplete are foreign policy experts still manageable?

(D) good foreign policy decisions often lead to improved methods of gathering information X
-change of circumstance…the passage states that we have lack of info…

(E) intuitive judgment can produce good decisions based on past experience, even when there are important gaps in current information
Correct.
_________________

It is more of an assumption question.
best spies+ area experts + satellite surveillance + XYZ = foreign policy assessments
XYZ= critical information
if no XYZ then intuitive judgment
Conclusion: Leader make good decision on foreign policy
It means : leaders good decision == > because of intuitive judgment

Summary: best spies+ area experts + satellite surveillance + (leaders intuitive judgment if no critical information available) = GOOD DECISION on foreign policy assessments--> E

why not B?
those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have also been found to have good intuitive judgment
Open point? == what about other leaders?
In argument we don't see about specific type of leaders. Any leader can take good decision based on intuitive approach.



Another approach:
Negate B:those leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked have NOT also been found to have good intuitive judgment
Effect on conclusion: Ok it means other leader can take decision? So conclusion can still be valid
Hence B cant not be answer.

My approach :
Any option that has LEAST open points to argue WOULD BE CORRECT ANSWER.

I struggled between answer choices B and E and ended up choosing B because I felt choice E provided outside information (past experience). But it makes sense now that E is the correct answer because having past experience definitely helps with decision making and should not be seen as outside information.

you can also reject B because it talks only about specific leaders whose foreign policy decisions have been highly ranked
whereas E talks in general and is applicable in all sceanrios.
the conclusion is in general based on judgment without specifying any type of leaders.