V04-21, V04-22, V04-23, V04-24

Question

Used either in conjunction with or in addition to warfare and diplomacy, embargo is a foreign policy tool designed to coerce governments into taking actions the originating nation deems necessary or appropriate. An embargo, strictly defined, halts both imports to and exports from the target nation, but it can also prohibit only certain kinds of trade or levy heavy taxes on a nation’s goods. More a political than a military tool, embargo is a form of economic warfare that uses a forced shortage of goods – and therefore cash flow – to place internal pressure on a country’s leaders in the hope of forcing policy or regime change.
 
In the twentieth century, the United States government has employed embargo against Cuba since the early 1960s, when Fidel Castro brought a Communist government to power, and also more recently against certain African countries, such as Liberia and Zimbabwe, where a series of civil wars have been funded by the diamond trade. The US embargo of Cuba began in 1961, when US leaders’ discomfort with having an ally of the Soviet Union so close to the United States – Cuba is an island only 90 miles from the tip of Florida – led them to explore economic tools as a way to dismantle Castro’s regime. In Africa, by contrast, embargoes on diamonds have sought, not to undermine a particular political ideology, but rather to protect common citizens by preventing warlords and dictators from trading diamonds for guns that they use to perpetuate civil war.
 
Although embargo imposed from outside a country is most common, an interior embargo is also possible. Called “autarky,” from the Greek words “self” and “sustain,” an autarky is a closed economic system. The autarkic country essentially embargoes all surrounding nations by allowing trade only among its own citizens and companies. Although the United States experienced a brief period of autarky from 1807 to 1809, when President Thomas Jefferson thought it best that the newly-formed nation break all economic ties with Great Britain, such extreme isolationism has proven hard to maintain.  1. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(a) debating the merits of a foreign policy tool
(b) undermining a common misconception
(c) providing information about a government practice
(d) advocating the use of a type of economic punishment
(e) bringing attention to a little known concept
 C

2. Which of the following best describes the relationship of the third paragraph to the passage as a whole?

(a) A new idea and contrary evidence are introduced.
(b) Exceptions to the rules of economic embargo are discussed.
(c) The main idea of the passage is refuted using historical evidence.
(d) A third perspective on the coercive nature of embargo is outlined.
(e) The main idea of the passage is further discussed from a different perspective.
 E

3. The author mentions EACH of the following as a goal of embargo EXCEPT

(a) to wage economic warfare
(b) to punish a country’s leadership for inappropriate policies
(c) to break economic ties with another nation
(d) to force a shortage of goods and cash flow
(e) to protect common citizens from violence
 B

4. 
The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements about the United States government’s embargo of Cuba?
 
The embargo of Cuba .

(a) was begun with the intention of undermining a political ideology
(b) is easier to enforce than embargoes of African countries, since Cuba is closer
(c) has forced Cuba to become an autarky with a closed economic system 
(d) was a tactic of economic warfare used against the Soviet Union
(e) has put significant economic pressure on Cuba’s leaders
 A

grsm · Accepted Answer

Hello All, 
Can some please explain how is it that answer choice B works ?

...... so close to the United States – Cuba is an island only 90 miles from the tip of Florida – led them to explore economic tools as a way to   dismantle Castro’s regime.

Isn't this a way to punish a country’s leadership for inappropriate policies (i.e socialistic ideology that US did not agree too). According to me it is indeed stated in the passage.

Bunuel · Answer

The words  primarily concerned with  in the question stem indicate that the correct answer can be found by considering the passage as a whole. Paragraph 1 defines embargo, which paragraph 2 discusses instances when embargo has been used by the US government. The third paragraph presents an alternate view, of interior embargo. It can be concluded, then, that the goal of the passage is to provide information on the topic  embargo .   The merits of embargo as a tool are not debated. 
 A common misconception is not discussed, much less undermined. 
 Each paragraph in the passage presents a new idea about embargo, so it can be concluded that the main goal of the passage as a whole is to provide information. 
   Economic punishment  is not discussed, and the passage does not have a tone of advocacy. 
 The passage does not state that embargo is a  little known concept .     In the passage, each paragraph offers new information about the main topic  embargo . Paragraph 1 provides a definition, paragraph 2 gives examples of use, and paragraph 3 continues discussion of the main topic from a different perspective.   Details introduced in paragraph 3 are meant to provide further information, not  contrary evidence . 
 The passage discusses neither the  rules of embargo  nor any exceptions to those rules. 
 The main goal of the passage is to provide information on embargo, and, as such, it can not be refuted by further historical evidence. 
 The  coercive nature of embargo  is not the main idea of the passage, and so the final paragraph can not present a third perspective. 
 The main goal of the passage is to provide information about embargo, and the third paragraph continues the discussion with details about a type of  interior  embargo.     This question requires the selection of the detail  not  mentioned in the passage. In order to select the correct answer choice, test each one and look for a line in the passage that supports it.   In this line, embargo is mentioned as a form of economic warfare. 
 The passage does not discuss embargo as a  punishment ; this option is a distortion of ideas in the first paragraph. 
  This line discusses the 1807-09 period of autarky in the US as an attempt to break economic ties with Great Britain. 
 Shortage of goods and restriction of cash flow are mentioned in these lines. 
 Embargoes against certain African countries are intended to protect citizens, as discussed in these lines.     The answer to this question depends on making an inference. First, review paragraph 2, where the US government’s reasons for initiating embargoes are discussed. This line indicates that an embargo against Cuba began when a Communist government came into power, and these lines state that a goal of the US embargo was to weaken the Communist leader, Castro. In the following line, the passage states that the US did not seek to undermine a political ideology in Africa, implying that it  did  have such a goal in Cuba. The words  by contrast  further emphasize this idea.    These lines, taken together with the first sentence of the paragraph, imply that undermining Castro’s Communist ideology was a main goal of the embargo of Cuba. 
 This is a distortion of a detail found here. 
 The passage does not state that Cuba has cut off all imports and exports from the interior, which would make it an autarky. 
 This is a distortion of a detail, which states only that Cuba was an ally of the Soviet Union. 
 This is the  goal  of embargo, but the passage does not state whether or not it was successful.

chukychuk · Answer

Hi, 
regarding question 3: The author mentions EACH of the following as a goal of embargo EXCEPT

(a) to wage economic warfare
(b) to punish a country’s leadership for inappropriate policies
(c) to break economic ties with a parent nation
(d) to force a shortage of goods and cash flow
(e) to protect common citizens from violence

Answer (d) is fairly clearly stated in the passage as a mean rather than a goal (More a political than a military tool, embargo is a form of economic warfare  that uses  a forced shortage of goods – and therefore cash flow – to place internal pressure on a country’s leaders in the hope of forcing policy or regime change.). The goals come later in the same sentence.

I understand the point about the distortion ("punishment") but I would assume that a "mean vs. goal" error (if indeed an error) would be a stronger argument in determining the correct answer.

Thanks!

rmohammadi · Answer

I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate. In my opinion, this question is flawed, because the choice D is also incorrect, as the passage mentions that "embargo uses a forced shortage of goods" as a means to place pressure to change policy or regime. So, shortage of goods is not the goal of embargo, but a means to change policy or regime, which is the intention of embargo.

vishnu440 · Answer

answer to question 3 must be C..as B is mentioned in the last line of first paragraph

sayantanc2k · Answer

In my view, option B is OK. The passage does not mention  punishment of the leadership for inappropriate policies  as the reason for deployment of embargo.
Option C is mentioned in the last paragraph: Great Britain in this context is the parent nation: "President Thomas Jefferson thought it best that the newly-formed nation break all economic ties with Great Britain."

Navinder · Answer

I also feel the same that choice D is given as mean and not as a goal. Can someone please explain this?

sayantanc2k · Answer

Good point. Consider the follfoieng logic:

The goal of embargo, "halting import and export", is "to force a shortage of goods and cash flow". This is an an i ntermediate  goal, which in turn will result in the final goal, i.e. pressurise the country's leaders.

Therefore depicting option D as a goal ( although not the ultimate goal) is alright.

Say, I want to become first in an exam. So I study hard.

Studying hard will fulfill my intermediate goal - I shall retain the subject matter in my memory. This intermediate goal will result in the ultimate goal - become first.

Thus stating that "retaining subject matter in memory" is a goal of "studying hard" is not flawed.

tae808 · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

svarun · Answer

Hi,

Isn't option c) a goal of 'autarky'? And since the question asks for an exception among goals of 'embargo', I went with c).

Thanks,
Varun

sayantanc2k · Answer

Please refer to this part:
"Although embargo imposed from outside a country is most common, an interior embargo is also possible. Called “autarky,” from the Greek words “self” and “sustain,” an autarky is a closed economic system. The autarkic country essentially embargoes all surrounding nations..."

Thus option C is not the correct answer.

hallikush] · Answer

Question 3 . 
3. The author mentions EACH of the following as a goal of embargo EXCEPT

(a) to wage economic warfare
(b) to punish a country’s leadership for inappropriate policies
(c) to break economic ties with a parent nation
(d) to force a shortage of goods and cash flow
(e) to protect common citizens from violence

Regarding option (c) :   when President Thomas Jefferson thought it best that the newly-formed nation break all economic ties with Great Britain, 
How can one infer that GB was a parent nation without using any external knowledge. All I can infer is US was a newly formed nation and its President seek to break all economic ties with GB. Please comment.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Your point is valid - option c has been modified.

Keepushinalmosthere · Answer

I got tripped up by this one.

Option A is the one I chose. My reasoning -

Options C, D, and E were definitely clearly stated in the text as goals of the embargo, so I didn't choose any of them.

But the waging of economic warfare - option A - I thought this was an intermediate goal of the embargo. The point of the embargo isn't to wage warfare, but to actually changes hearts and minds. The actual point of the embargo itself - is more like regime change, policy change, etc.. big picture ideas. So I do not buy the idea that "B" is a goal of the embargo.

Whereas for Option B, the argument can be made that the embargo against Cuba was to punish Castro for steering his country to Communism. Furthermore, the embargoes against the dictators and warlords (read: Country's leadership), is to stop them from going to war against one another (the policy trying to be prevented).

So based on my reading, it seems that Option B IS a valid goal of the embargo - more valid than than the intermediate goal of waging economic warfare.

Sid27 · Answer

Same Reason for me too. Can someone explain why option A is wrong ?

jayeluu1129 · Answer

A is definitely correct. Economic warfare is a policy decision, not a goal. If it were a goal, then all the other options are invalid, as to achieve the "goal" of economic warfare implies an unending embargo. It's a means to an end, not a goal.

"to place internal pressure on a country’s leaders in the hope of forcing policy or regime change." Though the word, punish, is not included here, I think it's quite clear that embargo does effectively just that. It's a reactive measure designed to hurt a nation, including both citizens and those in power...

bpdulog · Answer

I was thinking along the same lines. To me, A sounded like a description of what an embargo is as opposed to a goal. Passage states "embargo is a form of economic warfare that uses a forced shortage of goods."

RK007 · Answer

I think this is a  poor-quality  question and I don't agree with the explanation.

rsidawi · Answer

I also selected A. Two reasons why I did:

1.) "Used either in conjunction with or in addition to warfare and diplomacy, embargo..."

This statement, which is provided in the first sentence of the passage, asserts that the embargo was IN CONJUNCTION or IN ADDITION to "warfare"...Therefore, the goal is not economic warfare but instead something else which caused the government to implement these measures.

2.) "In the twentieth century, the United States government has employed embargo against Cuba since the early 1960s, when Fidel Castro brought a Communist government to power"..."The US embargo of Cuba began in 1961, when US leaders’ discomfort with having an ally of the Soviet Union so close to the United States – Cuba is an island only 90 miles from the tip of Florida – led them to explore economic tools as a way to dismantle Castro’s regime."

These statements clearly illustrate that the US government was not keen to Cuba's communist policies and thus imposed an embargo with the intent to impair the economy and force out the current regime.

Can someone please address these concerns.

V04-21, V04-22, V04-23, V04-24

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