It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 04:31

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

The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 15

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

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 07:23
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

HideShow timer Statistics

The recently negotiated North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States is misnamed, because it would not result in truly free trade. Adam Smith, the economist who first articulated the principles of free trade, held that any obstacle placed in the way of the free movement of goods, investment, or labor would defeat free trade. So since under the agreement workers would be restricted by national boundaries from seeking the best conditions they could find, the resulting obstruction of the flow of trade would, from a free-trade perspective, be harmful.
The argument proceeds by
(A) ruling out alternatives
(B) using a term in two different senses
(C) citing a nonrepresentative instance
(D) appealing to a relevant authority
(E) responding to a different issue from the one posed

plz explain

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

 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 09:28
Looks like A.
The NAFTA could be a TYPE of free trade agreement. It doesn't have to exactly follow the guidelines of free trade as defined. It could be an alternative of the free trade that has been defined. The author, by ruling out any alternatives of free trade says that NAFTA, because it does not follow the definition of free trade, is not a free trade agreement. Nafta could also be a modified kind of free trade agreement.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1837

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 52

Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 10:09
I think B. A is very close 2nd though. NAFTA is using free trade as one sense while the economist is using basically the dictionary sense of the term "free trade". Heck if he wants to analyze further "free" isnt even free since the traders has to pay to travel and thus not "free trade" by his definition.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 273 [0], given: 52

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 13

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 11:08
IMO D. Argument proceeds by appealing to a relevant authority (Adam Smith).

Kudos [?]: 138 [0], given: 13

Intern
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 12:00
Adam Smith, a noteworthy economist, said that anything which would limit free trade was a bad thing. The prompt then says that because NAFTA would put limits on free trade it is a bad thing. Therefore, the prompt is appealing to Adam Smith as a relevant authority.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 875

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 12:10
C for me:) We have almost all the options now..

Free trade talks about free movement of goods, investment of labor however the last part talks about obstruction of the flow of 'trade' ,which is not what free trade means as per the definition mentioned. So an altogether non-representative instance is cited.

I may be wrong too. Waiting for OA and source.

Kudos [?]: 843 [0], given: 18

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 13:51
I have to say, I am wrong on this one. getmba is right. The argument does proceed by appealing to a relevant authority. So, it should be D.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 317

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 14

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 17:10
Looks like A to me
_________________

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 14

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

Concentration: Nonprofit, Strategy
GPA: 3.42
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)

Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 17:27
C for me, states a case where free trade is not valid

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 9

Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 15

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

Show Tags

03 Sep 2009, 01:54
Economist wrote:
C for me:) We have almost all the options now..

Free trade talks about free movement of goods, investment of labor however the last part talks about obstruction of the flow of 'trade' ,which is not what free trade means as per the definition mentioned. So an altogether non-representative instance is cited.

I may be wrong too. Waiting for OA and source.

I also thought C as the ans but the OA is D.
Source is 1000CR doc

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 343

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 32

Show Tags

04 Sep 2009, 02:07
D?? where is the reference to authority?

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 32

Re: CR doubt   [#permalink] 04 Sep 2009, 02:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by