After the United Nations Security Council authorized military

Question

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemning its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament’s opposition to the anticipated intervention; on the contrary, most members of parliament supported the UN plan.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy presented above?

(A) The UN Security Council cannot legally commit the military of a member nation to armed intervention in other countries.
(B) In the parliamentary leader’s nation, it is the constitutional prerogative of the parliament, not of the prime minister, to initiate foreign military action.
(C) The parliament would be responsible for providing the funding necessary in order to contribute military personnel to the UN intervention.
(D) The public would not support the military action unless it was known that the parliament supported the action.
(E) Members of the parliament traditionally are more closely attuned to public sentiment, especially with regard to military action, than are prime ministers.

VIGHNESHKAMATH · Answer

Can someone explain why answer to this question is Option B? Constitutional prerogative of the parliament was there even before the UN passed the legislation; then how does it help to resolve the paradox? I marked option B, as funding would be done by the parliament.

Regards
Vighnesh

Regards
Vighnesh

trulyness · Answer

This is a paradox question. On the one hand, the country's parliament criticized the prime minister for sending the troops while on the other, the parliament did not have an issue in sending the armed forces for intervention. So we need to find an option that resolves this discrepancy.

A.  Incorrect.  If this option is true, then the parliament should be criticizing the UN Security council and not its own prime minister. Hence, this option doesn't help. 
B.  Correct!  If this is true, then it means that the reason why the parliament criticized was not that the PM promised the troops but because this was the responsibility of the parliament, not the PM. This option gives us some information as to why the parliament would have criticized PM and yet would not have any issues with the promise of the troop. 
C.  Incorrect.  If this information is true, then it does not make sense why the parliament would be okay with the decision of promising the troops. 
D.  Incorrect.  This does not help resolve the paradox. First of all, for all we know that the public was aware that parliament was in support of sending the troops. 
E.  Incorrect.  This is irrelevant as well. Also, this option does not tell us where the public sentiment lies with regard to the current situation.

Hope this helps!

unraveled · Answer

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemning its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament’s opposition to the anticipated intervention; on the contrary, most members of parliament supported the UN plan.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy presented above?

(A) The UN Security Council cannot  legally commit  the military of a member nation to armed intervention in other countries. - WRONG. A trap answer for people who have knowledge of UN affairs. But more importantly UNSC has already authorized the intervention whgihc this option tries to dispute. So, all in all, this is waste of an option.
(B) In the parliamentary leader’s nation, it is the  constitutional prerogative of the parliament , not of the prime minister,  to initiate foreign military action . - CORRECT. Without parliament the prime minister could not have made such a promise. Since s/he made so it becomes a matter of unconstitutionality. 
(C) The parliament would be  responsible for providing the funding  necessary in order to contribute military personnel to the UN intervention. - WRONG. Funding is sort of a diversion from the core of the argument. Even if it is responsible, it makes no such efforts to explain why such a resolution was passed against the prime minister.
(D) The  public would not support the military action  unless it was known that the parliament supported the action. - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(E) Members of the parliament traditionally are more closely attuned to  public sentiment , especially with regard to military action, than are prime ministers. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer B.

Hoozan · Answer

Vinit800HBS  could you throw some light on (C)

What if the country doesn't have the financial capacity or cannot at the moment commit the expense needed to fund the military attack? In that case, the parliament does support the UN but still can condemn the PM for promising to commit military personnel to the action

trulyness · Answer

The answer lies in your question itself. You asked "what if". So, in that way what all you said is an assumption you're making on top of the answer choice C. Nowhere does the passage mention that the country does not have the financial capacity. For all we know, this country is super duper rich with surplus funds which it can afford to spare.

However, if you take a look at option B, you'll realize no additional assumption is needed to resolve the paradox as it provides a reason why the parliament could be supporting the UN but still condemning the PM. This option states that the criticism was not about sending the troops but that the PM overstepped their boundaries.

Hope this helps!

Hoozan · Answer

I agree that (C) is the answer. But the reason why I shared the above thought process is that at times in arguments we need to consider possibilities in a way that could make an answer choice a possibility Check this one out https://gmatclub.com/forum/people-with- ... 21904.html The correct answer (C) needs a very big assumption for it to be the right one. The explanation by Marty highlights this point https://gmatclub.com/forum/people-with- ... 21904.html

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military

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

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military

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