It is currently 21 Nov 2017, 21:00

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 203 [5], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2008, 11:12
5
KUDOS
32
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

27% (01:31) correct 73% (01:50) wrong based on 1153 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 compete.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 203 [5], given: 0

Manager
Affiliations: Beta Gamma Sigma
Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Posts: 209

Kudos [?]: 75 [9], given: 3

Schools: Harvard, Penn, Maryland

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2008, 17:46
9
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
couldn't be D, the actions were "conditional on simuptaneous (I'm assuming simultaneous) action taken by the other countries," hence, all the countries would comply at the same time and the start signal for one is the start signal for all of them. I'm going with C, because if one country does not comply, then the other six countries have "well-founded excuses, based on the provision, for their own lack of compliance." meaning that if one doesn't pull the trigger the other six don't have to, becuase the actions are conditional on the simultaneous action of the other six countries in the treaty, which is one possibility that "the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open."

Kudos [?]: 75 [9], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 356

Kudos [?]: 419 [8], given: 47

Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 16:30
8
KUDOS
C is Correct

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 - No issues with this as the treaty doesn't give any specific deadlines. Hence postponement is not an open item

(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 - The stem clearly states that each country is bound a specific action and hence this makes this point invalid.

(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance - Correct. Reason, treaty has nothing about the clause if a certain country is not able to do the action due to some excuse, what should the dependent country do? Hence all the countries would keep on waiting for the notification.

(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
Nope, the treaty talks about the completion of action triggers the next. Hence initiation of one action need not be notified. It's the closure of action which should be notified.

(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete[/quote]
Again, deadline is not an issue.
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Kudos [?]: 419 [8], given: 47

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7743

Kudos [?]: 17838 [7], given: 235

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2010, 12:10
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
puma 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 compete.

Read the question first: The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that

Now read the stimulus and focus on what the simultaneous action provision is. It is that each of them needs to carry out certain actions on a fixed date simultaneously.
When I read this, a thought occurs to me. 'Who starts?'

Think of it this way, there are 7 people standing in a line. I say, "You all have to run simultaneously."
What do you think could be an issue? Each person could stand there waiting for someone to start because they have to run [highlight]simultaneously[/highlight].

Anyway, let's go on to the options.
Option (A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty.
The simultaneous provision has nothing to do with this possibility. These terms of the treaty, if they do exist, are irrelevant.

(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.
No relevance to the simultaneous provision.

(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance.
Yes, it does leave open this possibility. Each country might have a well-founded excuse which is "We didn't see others taking action, so we didn't either because we had to take actions simultaneously."

(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.
Read this option along with the question stem: 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. And anyway, the simultaneous action provision specified that all the countries have to act simultaneously. It did not leave open the possibility that one country could initiate after receiving completion signal from another.

(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be compete.
The simultaneous provision has nothing to do with ambiguity with respect to end date.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17838 [7], given: 235

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7743

Kudos [?]: 17838 [4], given: 235

Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2010, 13:31
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
mundasingh123 wrote:

karishma dont u think D is a paraphrase of the stimulus

Actually, I think the stimulus and option (D) say different things.

Stimulus says: All 7 had to perform specified actions on a fixed date simultaneously. Each country was to notify six others when it had completed its action.

(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.

D says that one country initiated its actions only after it received a signal from other countries that they had completed their actions. This is against the simultaneous specification of the treaty mentioned in the stimulus.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17838 [4], given: 235

Director
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 864

Kudos [?]: 1108 [1], given: 33

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2008, 18:43
1
KUDOS
B

Kudos [?]: 1108 [1], given: 33

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 278 [1], given: 25

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

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2010, 09:42
1
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Kudos [?]: 278 [1], given: 25

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7743

Kudos [?]: 17838 [1], given: 235

Location: Pune, India
Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 00:10
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
johnnguyen2016 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma

While I agree that no answer is better than C, I still not clear with E.

Assume that there are 7 countries: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7

Because the argument only refer to a certain date of a type of action X for example the 1/1/2016.

In this date, A1 do X, then A2 do X, then A3 do X.....then A7 do X and finnish.
If A1 do X for 2 days, A2 do X for n day, A3 do X for 0 day.....

Because we don't know how long each nation do action X
=> it is an ambiguity to know the days required for all countries to do action X.

The argument gives you this: "... specified actions on a certain fixed date ..."

So the actions have to be performed on one single fixed date. No country can take 2 or 3 or more days to perform the actions. A certain fixed date had been decided. The actions had to be done on that day itself. There is no ambiguity regarding the end date.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17838 [1], given: 235

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2008, 11:42
d)

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 275

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2008, 20:00
puma 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 simuptaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

The simuptaneous-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 compete.

C seems like the only answer that would satisfy this weird treaty. Each country will wait for the other six to complete the action and notify it. This will never happen.

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 10 Aug 2008
Posts: 12

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

Location: Research Triangle Park, NC

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2008, 20:22
I think "C" is right, too.

It seems that there is no mechanism to communicate the start. Although there is a mechanism to communicate completion and a fixed date on which the actions must be performed.

Sound right?

cP
_________________

Just a few electrons short of a full cloud...

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

Intern
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
Posts: 9

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

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2008, 03:30
I will go for "C"

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

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2008, 08:57
Great explanation.

dk94588 wrote:
couldn't be D, the actions were "conditional on simuptaneous (I'm assuming simultaneous) action taken by the other countries," hence, all the countries would comply at the same time and the start signal for one is the start signal for all of them. I'm going with C, because if one country does not comply, then the other six countries have "well-founded excuses, based on the provision, for their own lack of compliance." meaning that if one doesn't pull the trigger the other six don't have to, becuase the actions are conditional on the simultaneous action of the other six countries in the treaty, which is one possibility that "the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open."

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2008, 10:30
OA is C

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 305

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 69

Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2010, 14:32
maybe C?

I do not have to comply to treaty unless other countries do the same. But how can I know that? Treaty specifies that the notification is to be sent only after completion of the action. It's most probable that everyone will simply wait for others to take action

Kudos [?]: 166 [0], given: 69

Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2010, 14:33
I think its C, whats the OA?

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

Location: India
Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2010, 14:37
I actually I could not solve it. OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
C

Can you explain.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

Location: India
Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 17:21
Thanks
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 25

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 925

Kudos [?]: 1549 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: Seven countries signed a treaty binding [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2010, 04:56
I couldnt understand this stimulus as no conclusion is present.
In the end it asked for open threads and I chose E.
As per E -
there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete.

If one country didnt complete the action onbefore time then it wouldnt intimate other countries and similarly there is slippage in other countries date.

SudiptoGmat 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

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Kudos [?]: 1549 [0], given: 40

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 485

Kudos [?]: 163 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2010, 06:47
If each country has to wait for the others to complete their tasks first and then send this particular country the Task completion signal, then there is always the possibility that each of the countries is kept waiting for the signals from others.In this way none of the countries will have done its task,and will have the excuse that it did not receive the signal from the others.
Hence C.
It seems as if D is a paraphrase of the stimulus .
Any good reason to eliminate D.
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 163 [0], given: 149

Re: CR: treaty   [#permalink] 24 Nov 2010, 06:47

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by