Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an

Question

Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an unstable region. Of the 4 countries in the Senovian Mountain region, Senovia is the only one to have the same borders today as it did 20 years ago.

Which of the following if true, would most weaken the conclusion presented above?

A. After years of dispute between Senovia and its neighbors, the United Nation redrew the country’s borders to match their original shape last year.

B. Two of Senovia’s neighbors split from one another to create independent countries 10 years ago.

C. Many countries in the region are more interested in acquiring new territory than they are in stabilizing existing borders.

D. Senovia has had unsteady economic growth during the 20 years in question.

E. As more countries in the Senovian Mountain region have joined global alliances, border disputes have become less likely.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

paragw · Answer

Conclusion: Senovia is an example of stability because it has had the same borders for 20 years.

Need to weaken the link between "same borders" and "stability."

A. Borders were redrawn last year to match the original shape → Borders actually changed during the 20 years. So having the "same borders today" does not mean continuous stability. Strongly weakens.

B. Other countries split → Explains why others changed, does not weaken Senovia.

C. Other countries want more land → Supports instability in the region.

D. Economic growth is irrelevant to border stability.

E. Border disputes are becoming less likely → Strengthens.

Answer: A

vasu1104 · Answer

of 4 countries in senovian mountain region, senovia is only one to have same borders today as it did 20 years ago.
conclusion= senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an unstable region.

so conclusion has been made on the fact that borders havent changed in 20 years.

A so they have been fighting for a while and now there is redrawing of border recently. thats why the border looked same. so this attacks the conclusion. keep.
B good for them. they wont fight anymore now. but did this split have any impact on borders captured by senovia? not sure. dump it.
C who cares about those region. only bothered by senovia's border and its changes in last 20 years. this choice offers nothing to weaken conclusion. reject.
D not talking about economic growth here, out.
E if border disputes have become less likely because of alliances, it doesnt mean the borders havent seen any changes. reject.

option A

Vivek1707 · Answer

Key Trap:  The conclusion equates having the  same borders  today as 20 years ago with having  stable borders throughout the last 20 years . Choice (A) breaks that equivalence by showing the borders may have changed during the period and simply ended up back where they started.

A. Correct :  The conclusion treats unchanged borders as evidence of stability. However, if Senovia's borders were changed and then restored to their original shape just last year, it did not actually enjoy continuous border stability over the past 20 years. This directly undermines the conclusion.

B. Incorrect: This strengthens the argument by showing that neighboring countries experienced significant border changes, making Senovia appear comparatively more stable.

C. Incorrect: This provides background about the region but does not show that Senovia itself was unstable.

D. Incorrect: The conclusion refers specifically to stability of borders, not economic stability. This is outside the scope of the argument.

E. Incorrect: If border disputes have become less likely in the region, this is consistent with the idea that Senovia is stable and does not weaken the conclusion.

TheAdmissionHub · Answer

Premise : Of the 4 countries in the Senovian Mountain region, Senovia is the only one to have the same borders today as it did 20 years ago.

Conclusion : Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an unstable region.

Which of the following if true, would most weaken the conclusion presented above?

A. After years of dispute between Senovia and its neighbors, the United Nation redrew the country’s borders to match their original shape last year.
 Correct:  Now it’s stable as it’s the only one having the same borders today as it did 20 years ago. But has it been stable throughout all these years? It might be the case that it got into a peaceful period after going through several rough patches.

B. Two of Senovia’s neighbors split from one another to create independent countries 10 years ago.
 Wrong:  we’re not concerned with Senovia’s neighbors.

C. Many countries in the region are more interested in acquiring new territory than they are in stabilizing existing borders.
 Wrong:  this statement would confirm that many countries are unstable, (unlike Senovia or including Senovia?). In any case, the focus in not explictly Senovia, so we don’t know if this city is included. It may or it may not be.

D. Senovia has had unsteady economic growth during the 20 years in question.
 Wrong:  we’re talking about stability because of borders, not economy. This is frameshift.

E. As more countries in the Senovian Mountain region have joined global alliances, border disputes have become less likely.
 Wrong:   so this would explain that Senovia is stable, but we need to prove the opposite.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

For any weaken question, remember that your first step is always to fully understand the stimulus and to find the gap. This question makes a generalization: it says that because the country of Senovia is the only one in the region to have the same borders as it has 20 years ago, that it can be considered a stable force in an unstable region. However, you only have two snapshots in time: the borders of Senovia as they are now and the borders of Senovia as they were 20 years ago. You don't have any other points of reference within that 20-year period.

Choice (A) perfectly fills this gap. Even though the borders are the same as they were 20 years ago, not only have they shifted over the last 20 years, but the instability was severe enough that the United Nations had to intervene.

Among the other answers, choice (B) strengthens the assertion that the rest of the region is relatively unstable. Choice (C) can be eliminated because it has to do with the intentions of other countries rather than the stability of Senovia itself. Choice (D) can be eliminated because the argument is about the stability of Senovia rather than its economic growth, and choice (E) can be eliminated because it is a general statement about the region as a whole rather than the stability of Senovia itself.

namanqqkm · Answer

I have a question that if borders were redrawn then it would be for all the 4 countries, but why is Senovia the only country for which borders are same as 20 yrs ago, it would be for all 4 countries ?

guddo · Answer

I’d say the issue is that (A) does not say all four countries’ borders were restored to their original shapes. It says  Senovia’s borders  were redrawn to match their original shape.

That can happen even if neighboring countries still have different borders today because of other disputes, splits, or territorial changes.

So Senovia can still be the only country with the same borders today as 20 years ago, but (A) weakens the argument because those borders were not  stable throughout  the period.

egmat · Answer

Hi namanqqkm,

Good question, and the fix is right there in the exact words of choice A. Look at what it says gets redrawn:

"the United Nation redrew  the country's  borders to match their original shape last year."

"The country" here means Senovia only  - not all four countries. The choice is describing a change made to  Senovia's  borders specifically, restoring them to the shape they had before. It never says the UN redrew everyone's borders across the region.

So your reading - that a redrawing would apply to all  4  - isn't what A states. If it  had  said the UN reset the whole region's borders, then yes, your objection would land. But A is deliberately narrow: it targets Senovia alone.

Why that wording is exactly what weakens the argument

The conclusion says Senovia is "an example of stability" using only two snapshots: its borders  today  and its borders  20  years ago. Since those two match, the author assumes nothing happened in between.

Choice A fills that blind spot  for Senovia specifically :

- Senovia had "years of dispute" with its neighbors.
- Its borders actually shifted during the  20  years.
- They only match the original shape because the UN restored them  last year .

Therefore , the "same borders today" is the result of a recent fix, not of continuous stability. That's the whole weakener - and it works  because  the change is about Senovia, the one country the conclusion is about. If A were about all four countries equally, it would say nothing special about whether  Senovia  was stable.

Bottom line: read "the country's borders" as "Senovia's borders," and A snaps into place.

Answer: A

Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an

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

­Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an

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

Senovia can be looked upon as an example of stability within an