V05-15

Question

Which of the following best completes the passage below?
 
Economic sanctions that forbid trade with countries governed by dictators assume that the dictator will change policies unacceptable to the imposing nation when the citizens of the country against which the sanctions are imposed lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing. The reasoning of the imposing nation regarding the success of the sanctions is flawed because the imposing nation fails to consider that: __________.

A. citizens of the country against whom the sanctions are imposed are already accustomed to scarcity in resources
B. the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy
C. the country imposing the sanctions relies on exports from the subject country
D. the dictator is not concerned by the inconvenience of his people
E. citizens of the country against whom the sanctions are imposed do not understand the leader’s policies

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Which of the following best completes the passage below?
 
Economic sanctions that forbid trade with countries governed by dictators assume that the dictator will change policies unacceptable to the imposing nation when the citizens of the country against which the sanctions are imposed lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing. The reasoning of the imposing nation regarding the success of the sanctions is flawed because the imposing nation fails to consider that: __________.

A. citizens of the country against whom the sanctions are imposed are already accustomed to scarcity in resources
B. the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy
C. the country imposing the sanctions relies on exports from the subject country
D. the dictator is not concerned by the inconvenience of his people
E. citizens of the country against whom the sanctions are imposed do not understand the leader’s policies

The question asks to find a flaw in the reasoning of the sanction-imposing nations - it does not ask to find whether or not the approach would be successful. The reasoning of the sanction imposing nation is as follows:
 
 Premise:  The people of the country lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing.
 
 Conclusion:  The dictator would change policies unacceptable to the imposing nation.
 
One underlying assumption in the reasoning of the imposing nation is that the dictator would be concerned by the inconvenience caused to his people who lose access to food, water and clothing, and because of his concern for his people, he would change the policies.
 
A. This option does not have relevance to the reasoning of the sanctioning country. The correct option must point out a flaw in the premise-to-conclusion link mentioned above. The people of the dictator’s nation might already be poor, but the logic of the argument is that losing access to food, water and clothing would be an additional inconvenience which might influence the dictator to change the policies.
 
B. Although this option points out a reason why the sanction could be unsuccessful, and indeed, a hard-minded dictator (which most of them are), would be unwilling to compromise but this option is incorrect as it goes outside of the argument's scope. The question asks to find a flaw in the reasoning of the sanction-imposing nations. We are told there are facts X and assumptions Y. The answer cannot be Z but has to be something that is based on X and Y. The dictator may have ideological reasons that might make the sanctions unsuccessful in changing his policies, but the reasoning of the sanctioning nations stated in the passage is not weakened by this option.
 
C. Although this option points out a reason why the sanction could be unsuccessful, this option does not address the connection between the premise and conclusion. As described earlier, the question asks to find a flaw in the reasoning of the sanction-imposing nations - it does not ask to find whether or not the approach would be successful. The economy of the imposing country might surfer because of the sanctioning, thereby giving a possibility that the sanction would be lifted, but the reasoning (premise-to-conclusion link) of the sanctioning nations stated in the passage is not attacked by this option.
 
 D. CORRECT.  The original argument implies that the suffering itself is the primary lever. The imposition nation believes: "If we make them suffer enough, the dictator will change." This necessarily assumes the dictator is somehow motivated by or responsive to that suffering, either directly (by caring) or indirectly (by being vulnerable to the political fallout from suffering).
 
 the dictator is not concerned by the inconvenience of his people  directly attacks this vulnerability. If he is not concerned, then the entire chain of "suffering -> pressure -> policy change" breaks down because the dictator has no reason to respond positively to the pressure. He simply doesn't care if his people are inconvenienced or worse, and therefore, he won't be moved to change policy because of that inconvenience.
 
E. This option does not have relevance to the reasoning of the sanctioning country. The correct option must point out a flaw in the premise-to-conclusion link mentioned above. Whether the citizens of a country understand the dictator’s policy has nothing to do with the reasoning of the sanctioning country.

Answer: D

Bunuel · Answer

The question or/and solution has been revised and edited. Thank you  sayantanc2k  !!!

Rickooreo · Answer

Bunuel   sayantanc2k   bb

I am unable to understand the argument because of the following 
 Economic sanctions that forbid trade with countries with dictatorial  governments assume that the dictator will change policies unacceptable to the  imposing nation  when the citizens of the country  against which the sanctions are imposed  lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing. The reasoning of the imposing nation regarding the success of the sanctions is flawed because _________

Say country A and country B are there
Country A (non-dictator country) imposes sanctions (in line with the bold sentence above) so Country A is imposing country?
Country B - country against which sanctions are imposed

Now read the following stimulus
citizens of the country against which the sanctions are imposed lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing.

Here we are talking about harm to the citizens of Country B. So the reason for imposing sanction by Country A has nothing to do with the risk on country A or country A's citizens. Is this correct understanding?

BottomJee · Answer

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

anne_123 · Answer

The statement basically says:

Country X will impose economic sanctions on Country Y if Country Y has policies that go against the life quality measures that Country X finds acceptable. Country X expects the economic sanctions to be successful, meaning that the dictator from Country Y will change policies and ensure access to basic needs for Country Y's citizens.

That being said, from Country X's point of view, it does not matter if the dictator truly cares about the well-being of Country Y's citizens. The economic sanctions, from Country X's point of view, are a motivation strong enough to generate a change in policies, so that they be in accordance with what they believe is acceptable.

Option D stands that, since the dictator does not care about the inconvenience to its people, the plan will not be successful, which may not necessarily be the case, as the policies may change due to the fear of the economic consequences from the imposed sanction.

I don't see how option D can be the correct one in this case, can someone help me understand it?

Ishita2000 · Answer

I think this the explanation isn't clear enough, please elaborate.  GMATNinja  would be grateful if you please help with this question. Thanks a lot!

Ishita2000 · Answer

Bunuel  could you please elaborate by keeping two countries say X and Y and then throwing light on the solution

sssdd1234 · Answer

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

NeerajR2000 · Answer

I think the correct answer is:

the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy

This option highlights a crucial flaw in the reasoning of the imposing nation. Economic sanctions assume that the dictator will change policies due to pressure from citizens affected by the sanctions. However, if the dictator has strong ideological reasons for maintaining their policies, they may be willing to withstand the pressure and continue their current policies, even if it means their citizens suffer.

This option is a more plausible explanation for the flawed reasoning than the other options, which are less convincing or irrelevant to the context.

The option "the dictator is not concerned by the inconvenience of his people" is incorrect because it doesn't necessarily explain why the dictator wouldn't change their policies in response to economic sanctions.

A dictator who is unconcerned about their people's well-being might still change their policies if they believe it would benefit them personally or maintain their power. For example, if the sanctions are severe enough to threaten the dictator's own position or wealth, they might still choose to change their policies to alleviate the pressure.

In contrast, the correct option "the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy" suggests that the dictator's commitment to their policies is driven by deeply held beliefs or values, making them more resistant to changing their policies, even in the face of economic sanctions.

bb · Answer

Hi. This is a tricky question that requires understanding of the argument and the parameters provided within it. We have to analyze the reasoning of the imposing nation.

The key to this question is the setup:

assume    that the dictator   will change policies unacceptable to the imposing nation when the citizens of the country against which the sanctions are imposed lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing  .  The reasoning of the imposing nation regarding the success of the sanctions is flawed because

You have to prove that the reasoning is flawed  . You do not need to explain why the dictator may not budge. Many reasons why the dictator may not budge but only one correct explanation why the reasoning is flawed.

The solution has to focus on the reasoning and assumption presented in the question. We are told that the assumption is that the suffering of people will force the dictator to change their policies. Thus any answer such as "Dictator will not change his mind" or an external factor such as "Aliens will invade" are outside of the scope of the argument. We are not told why the dictator may reverse their policy but if the answer is not based on the reasoning of the imposing nation, then it is not the answer.

P.S. I don't think the explanation below is an explanation of the argument. It seems to be explaining dictators and sanctions rather than the argument.

Moderator note: I revised the grammar of the question and a few answer choices to make it more appropriate.

avellanjc · Answer

Isnt the argument based on the fact that the Dictator will lift the unwanted policies not out of "desire" but because he will be forced by the discontent of the population? Wouldn ́t it be irrelevant whether the cares or not about the inconvinience of his population.

Please clarify me this issue,

Best Regards,

JC

Please clarify me this issue,

Best Regards,

JC

bb · Answer

Hi  avellanjc , Yes, that is what D says - the dictator is NOT concerned about the population but also the dictator may not care because the suffering may NOT lead to an effective pressure.

The key is that the sanctions  assume  the dictator is responsive to citizen suffering (either by caring or population response about the suffering). If the dictator simply  doesn't care  about his people's inconvenience, then any discontent (even if it arises) won't actually  force  him to change policy. His indifference breaks the whole chain of reasoning the imposing nation is relying on.

V05-15

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