It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 10:55

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to

Author Message
VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1012

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 08:59
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 09:16
ak_idc wrote:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete

Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1161

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 19:01
go for a tough D.

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 915

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 19:32
I am going with D.

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 523

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 20:50
I chose C.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 21:31
Could not eleminate D.

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 406

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2006, 23:48
Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

going by the statement above , D seems to be a possibility.............

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2006, 01:16
dwivedys wrote:
ak_idc wrote:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete

Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..

I have to recant my earlier decision. D is right.

If each country was to notify the other countries when it had completed its action, then there's every possibility that THIS particular act would be the signal for the other countries to initiate action.

When I read this question - the first thing that struck my mind was - if every country is dependent on the OTHER countries notification - no one would ever begin action because they can easily cite the blame on other countries that they never notified in the first place. This just lead me to pick up C.

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1012

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2006, 02:43
dwivedys wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
ak_idc wrote:
Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete

Hmmm interesting.. I would pick C, because according to the proviso in the treaty, each country can claim the excuse of not initiating action because none of the others did so - in effect leading to a condition when every one just sits back and relaxes and no work gets done..

I have to recant my earlier decision. D is right.

If each country was to notify the other countries when it had completed its action, then there's every possibility that THIS particular act would be the signal for the other countries to initiate action.

When I read this question - the first thing that struck my mind was - if every country is dependent on the OTHER countries notification - no one would ever begin action because they can easily cite the blame on other countries that they never notified in the first place. This just lead me to pick up C.

OA is C I was also misled by D.

I think...D is a repition of what is already stated in the argument.

Whcih of the following looks more meaninful?:lol:

The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that...each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance

The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that...the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Last edited by ak_idc on 24 Nov 2006, 04:34, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2006, 03:42
That's a fantastic morale booster one week before the test I must say!

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 915

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2006, 05:01
Now I get it. Thanks for posting this question ak_idc!

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

24 Nov 2006, 05:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by