Arab leaders from Egypt to UAE and surprisingly Saudi Arabia are turni

Question

Arab leaders from Egypt to UAE and surprisingly Saudi Arabia are turning moderate after having been supporters of radical Islamists for long. They have introduced policies aimed at creating a more secular and tolerant society, albeit one with severely limited political rights. While liberals have welcomed the moves, they believe that the moves are primarily motivated by self-interest.

The liberal belief that the actions of Arab leaders are motivated by self-interest is based on the assumption that.

A. Some Arab leaders have in the past cooperated with Islamists to strengthen their own power.

B. In countries with high poverty and poor governance support for Islamists is still high and growing.

C. Arab rulers in places like Egypt and UAE believe that their political positions are threatened by the Islamists.

D. It is unclear for how long and how far Arab rulers will push secularization.

E. While religious and social freedoms are on the rise, political freedoms are still curtailed.

Source-  GMAT  Whiz

Rohan30 · Answer

Can someone explain why the answer is option C?

Posted from my mobile device

anupam87 · Answer

Premise – Leaders were supporter of radical Islamists for long. But now they are introducing policies to create a more secular and tolerant society. 
Conclusion – As per liberals the moves are primarily motivated by self-interest.

Let us negate C – 
Arab rulers in places like Egypt and UAE believe that their political positions are not threatened by the Islamists. – in this case the conclusion is weakened.

Saharsh95 · Answer

The leaders are shown to have changed their behavior from Radicals (extremists) to moderate. The Liberals accept or kind of acknowledge this behavior but they feel something is fishy because despite creating a secular environment, they have still maintained "limited" political rights. This move makes Liberals think that since the Arab leaders turned from extremists to moderate and promoted a secular society , they might be threatened or must face pressure by the radical groups they had supproted earlier, and therefore, to curb any opposition actions by those radical groups politically, they want to limit the political rights. Hence, this step of limiting political rights serves as a step taken in the Leaders own interests (self interests).

Tinytrotter · Answer

Okay, valid point I guess but if they were already supporting Islamist radicals in the past using their positions of political power and they feel threatened by these radicals as far as their political power is concerned, how does becoming moderate socially help them? I mean earlier it seems they were socially radically and now they are socially moderate, it does not signify a change in their political rights stance and so I fail to see why such a move would be in the self-interests of these leaders, especially if they are threatened politically!

guddo · Answer

Arab leaders from Egypt to UAE and surprisingly Saudi Arabia are turning moderate after having been supporters of radical Islamists for long. They have introduced policies aimed at creating a more secular and tolerant society, albeit one with severely limited political rights. While liberals have welcomed the moves, they believe that the moves are primarily motivated by self-interest.
 
 The liberal belief that the actions of Arab leaders are motivated by self-interest is based on the assumption that

The liberals accept that the leaders are making society more secular and tolerant, but they think the real motive is not principle or liberal values.  The key missing link  is that these reforms somehow help the leaders protect their own power. If Islamists threaten the rulers politically, then weakening Islamist influence through secularization can be seen as  self-interested .

A. Some Arab leaders have in the past cooperated with Islamists to strengthen their own power.

This gives background, but it does not explain why their current moderation is self-interested.

B. In countries with high poverty and poor governance support for Islamists is still high and growing.

This may explain why Islamists remain influential, but it does not directly connect the rulers’ reforms to their own self-interest.

C. Arab rulers in places like Egypt and UAE believe that their political positions are threatened by the Islamists.

This is correct. If rulers think Islamists threaten their power, then their secularizing policies can be understood as a way to protect themselves politically, not merely as a principled move toward tolerance.

D. It is unclear for how long and how far Arab rulers will push secularization.

This creates uncertainty about the reforms, but it does not show self-interest as the motive.

E. While religious and social freedoms are on the rise, political freedoms are still curtailed.

This supports skepticism about how liberal the reforms really are, but it does not directly explain why the leaders are acting from self-interest.

Answer: (C)

egmat · Answer

Hi Tinytrotter,

You've actually spotted the real hinge of this question, so let's settle it.

You're separating two things that the argument ties together: the  social  shift (radical - moderate/secular) and the leaders'  political  interest. You're reading the secularization as just a lifestyle/society change that has nothing to do with their hold on power. That's the slip.

Here's the link C supplies.  Turning "moderate" doesn't just mean a softer society - it means turning  against the radical Islamists  these leaders used to support. So the question becomes: why would a ruler turn on his former allies? C answers it:

"Arab rulers... believe that their political positions are  threatened by the Islamists ."

If the Islamists are now a threat to your grip on power, then undercutting them - promoting a secular, tolerant culture that weakens their ideological base - is a way to  defend your own position . That  is  the self-interest. The move is political even though it wears social clothing. And notice the leaders keep "severely limited political rights" - they're loosening society precisely while clamping down on anything that could unseat them.

So the secularization isn't a change of heart; it's a tool aimed at the rivals who endanger them.

A simpler stand-in to feel it:

A mayor who once backed a powerful street gang suddenly starts cracking down on them and funding community programs. Why? Because the gang now threatens  his  office. The crackdown isn't about civic virtue - it's about removing the rival. The assumption that makes "self-interest" hold is exactly:  he feels threatened by the gang.

Map that back: the gang = the Islamists, the crackdown = secularization, the threatened office = C. That's why C is the  necessary  assumption.

Answer: C

Arab leaders from Egypt to UAE and surprisingly Saudi Arabia are turni

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Arab leaders from Egypt to UAE and surprisingly Saudi Arabia are turni

Prep Toolkit

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