The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations

Question

Economist:  The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations between countries has shown that when one country imposes a tariff on exports from a particular country, that country will then, in turn, impose its own tariffs against the original country in a move to pressure them to remove their original tariffs. However, if every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the Economist's argument and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would, provide significant logical support for the required assumption.

Shankey94 · Answer

Economist: The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations between countries has shown that when one country imposes a tariff on exports from a particular country, that country will then, in turn, impose its own tariffs against the original country in a move to pressure them to remove their original tariffs. However, if every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

Indicate two different statements as follows: one statement identifies an assumption required by the Economist's argument and the other identifies a possible fact that, if true, would, provide significant logical support for the required assumption.
 Argument:
Country A imposes tariffs on B, 
B imposes tariffs back to A to pressure A to remove
Conclusion: If this trend continues then trade will collapse

Assumption: 
Something without which argument won't stand 
 A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country. 
If this is not true then there won't be a starting point. No country will ever put a tariff on another country first.

Strengthen:
 For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports. 
If this is true it actually supports the conclusion. Since between any set of two countries if one has imposed tariff on another country that meant other country has also imposed tariff on that country which in turn means that trade will collapse.

UtkarshAnand · Answer

Assumption required: For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
Possible fact: A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

MiloMia · Answer

Assumption Required: A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.
- When negated breaks the argument 
- A country may “not” impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

Possible Fact: Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.

Catman · Answer

Economist: The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations between countries has shown that when one country imposes a tariff on exports from a particular country, that country will then, in turn, impose its own tariffs against the original country in a move to pressure them to remove their original tariffs. However, if every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

Assumption- Economist assumes that whenever any country imposes tariff on exports from a particular foreign country, the foreign country will impose a tariff duty against original country in order to pressurize the original country for removal of their initial tariff imposed.

Conclusion- These tariff will be a never ending phenomenon and ultimately will hamper the trade.

Assumption Required- A tariff has to be imposed, than only the argument is valid.
Hence, For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.

Possible Fact- A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.
This possible fact will strengthen the assumption that any country can impose the tariff, even if no existing tariffs are there on both sides.

Other choices:
1.The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed.
The paragraph is not related to the size of the GDP of the country and who is imposing the tariff on whom.

2. Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.
Correct, but how this protection to domestic industries will be helpful in duties imposed to the country by foreign countries remains unanswered.

3. Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs.
If these disputes can be resolved without imposition of tariffs than the author's argument is invalid that the tariff imposition will propagate endlessly and crippling the economy.

4. Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples.
For whatever commodity tariffs can be imposed, items are not the main concern, we have to check what will be the effect of tariff charged on the foreign trade and imposition of export tariff by other foreign countries.

JDLaw · Answer

As per the argument, the author seems to assume that this tariff war can be triggered by a single country. Otherwise two countries in perfect sync would never go down this path. Last option basically tells us the same.
Lets use negation rule for all options to see if the argument still stands, if not, then that option is the assumption.

The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed. If GDP is smaller so what? countries may still go down the mentioned path, Out of scope 
Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries. Whatever they are protecting doesn't make a difference 
For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports. Well this seems like if this were true, it would should support the assumption. 
Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs. Good for them, doesn't have any bearing on what happens before their settlement though. In fact this kind of weakens the argument. 
Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples. Same as B 
A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country. Correct

Assumption- E
Fact-C

Archit3110 · Answer

given in passage
when one country imposes a tariff on exports from a particular country, that country will then, in turn, impose its own tariffs against the original country in a move to pressure them to remove their original tariffs

Assumption :
 A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country

Fact : 
Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries

wadhwakaran · Answer

Let's suppose there are two countries A and B.
Country A imposed tariff on products being imported from Country B. As per the argument, Country B will respond in a similar manner and will impose tariff on products of Country A. This action of Country B is mentioned as the pressure tactics to remove tariff.
Conclusion: If every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

Assumption:

The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed. It is irrelevant to the argument.

Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.  Out of scope.

For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.  This can be the assumption to hold the argument because it will cover all the possible pairs of countries and will hold the conclusion of the argument that it will leave the world trade crippled.
 
Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs. Irrelevant to the argument.

Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples. Irrelevant

A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.  A reason/logical support as to why tariffs are imposed primarily by countries.

Arm007 · Answer

Lets solve it like CR question.
Conclusion: However, if every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

Premise: The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations between countries has shown that when one country imposes a tariff on exports from a particular country, that country will then, in turn, impose its own tariffs against the original country in a move to pressure them to remove their original tariffs.

Lets look at the options to find relevant assumptions:
The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed. - Out of scope, irrelevant. The argument isn't concerned about the GDP size of country
Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries. - Out of scope, irrelevant. The nature of why tariffs is needed is not under discussion.
For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports. - Negation of this does not break the argument. Hence it is not a assumption, but this could be a strengthener. This could strengthen the argument that if countries keep on increasing tariffs and if every country has imposed tarrifs on one another, then global trade would cripple. 
Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs. - shell game, not the answer. Nowhere in the passage is the nature of why the tariff is introduced is mentioned. Hence irrelevant.
Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples. - Irrelevant.
A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country. -Assumption. The negation of this is "A country cannot impose tariff if there is no tariff imposed by other country", which means that if none of the countries have imposed tariff to begin with, none of them can. So this is a required assumption.

So
 Assumption required:   A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

Possible fact: For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.

rajtare · Answer

Conclusion: if every nation acted in such a way, then tariffs would propagate endlessly, leading to crippled trade.

For this conclusion to hold true, author must have assumed that any nation can impose tariff on another country, even if there is no tariff currently being imposed on them

Assumption Required: A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country. 
 Possible Fact: Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs

yipmewmew · Answer

The argument says that if one country imposes a tariff on another, the other one will retaliate by imposing one or more tariffs. This requires the assumption in Option F that somebody can start imposing tariffs even if there were no tariffs from the other side to begin with. If this were not true, then the cycle of imposing tariffs wont start anyway.
The possible fact that supports this assumption is option B as it tells why a country which has no tariffs imposed on its exports would impose tariffs on another country, i.e. to protect its domestic industries.

Kushchokhani · Answer

Assumption required- For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
Possible fact- A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

It does not matter whether the country imposing original tariff has larger or smaller GDP than the other country. Hence, A is out.
Primary purpose of tariff does not need to be a must be true statement. Hence, B is out.
Choice C is a must be true statement for the conclusion to hold.
If disputes over trade relations can be settled without imposing tariff, the whole argument goes for a toss. Hence, D is out.
It does not matter whether which type of goods are more prone to levy of tariffs. Hence, E is out.
Choice F is a starting point and is supporting the assumption.

av1901 · Answer

Argument synopsis: History suggests that when one country imposes a tariff on another nation, the other nation also does the same to pressurize the original country to remove its tariff. But if every nation behaves this way, tariffs will keep building up and trade will get crippled

Conclusion: But if every nation behaves this way, tariffs will keep building up and trade will get crippled

Assumption (What bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion): What can it be? For every nation to respond to a tariff, one at least has to impose the tariff first

Let us examine the answer options:

The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed.

No, whether the original country has a larger or smaller GDP does not answer the question as to why it would impose a ban anyways

Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.

It may be true in general but in context to this question, it remains irrelevant because there is no mention of domestic industries in the argument

For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.

YES! Matches our assumption from pre-thinking. If one country has imposed only then the other country will impose and the endless imposition will cripple the trade (ASSUMPTION)

Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs.

Irrelevant to the argument and neither an assumption also

Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples.

Again, irrelevant as to what items tariffs are imposed on and what items they are not imposed on

A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

YES! This is a fact that supports our assumption. If a country may impose anytime whether other has or has not, then the endless imposition can continue

Answer:

Assumption: For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.

Fact: A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

pintukr · Answer

Conclusion of the Argument. --> Using quid pro quo while dealing with imposition of tariffs will in turn lead to tariffs propagating endlessly amongst countries. Overall impact will be 'crippled trade(minimal trade)'

A. The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed.  (GDP comparison --Irrelevant) 
B. Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.  (Though true in reality, but not mentioned..Also, Negation of the prompt doesn't undermine the conclusion) 
C. For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.   (Possible fact, to provide logical support to the assumption)  
D. Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs.  (Additional fact presented here..not an assumption) 
E. Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples.  (Additional fact presented here..not an assumption) 
F. A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.   (Assumption for the argument..On negation ie, A country may NOT impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country , thus no endless propagation of tariffs..Hence, CORRECT as an assumption)

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hello Everyone!

The OA to this question is:

Assumption required:  For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
 Possible fact:  A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

Well, this is a 750-level question and a few folks have gotten it correct. For me, the issue is messy explanations. Many peoples have written explanations very carelessly. Some have explained one thing but written another as an answer. In the explanation, they are saying something else but in the answer, they are saying something else. Very confusing, GeetDave I still can't get what you have written. Poorly formatted explanations create a fuss for me to read and understand and it blocks my speed. I am doing it all on my own so the participants can help me by properly formatting their answers.

Day 4 Questions are posted and can be approached via the main thread. The official Explanation will be posted at exactly 8:30 am Pacific. Good luck with today's question.

Regards

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument as stated implies that, as choice C states, in every relationship at least one tariff exists. Otherwise this crippled trade wouldn’t have a starting point to create this neverending game of one-upmanship. Choice F, then, goes to support this assumption by noting that initial tariffs do, in fact, have a starting point.

Answer:  
 Assumption required:  For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
 Possible fact:  A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

Gemmie · Answer

Required assumption:     For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.

Possible fact that provides support for the required assumption:   A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

=> Explanation:

The required assumption  suggests that there is already a prevalent practice of countries imposing tariffs on each other's exports. This assumption is crucial for the Economist's argument that retaliatory tariffs are a common response in international trade disputes. The possible facts  supports the assumption by highlighting that the initiation of tariffs can occur independently of reciprocal actions. It shows that countries may decide to impose tariffs for various reasons, such as economic protectionism or political motives, regardless of whether the targeted country has already imposed tariffs.

By acknowledging that tariffs can be unilaterally imposed without waiting for reciprocal tariffs, Option F reinforces the idea that the practice of imposing tariffs on each other's exports (as assumed) can occur independently and does not necessarily require a pre-existing tariff from the other party. This supports the broader notion that tariffs are a common tool used in international trade disputes and negotiations, which is central to the Economist's argument about the dynamics of retaliatory tariffs and their potential consequences for global trade.

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot: 

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.

The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations

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

Assumption required	Possible fact
		The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed.
		Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.
		For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
		Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs.
		Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples.
		A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

Assumption required	Possible fact
		The country imposing the original tariff has a significantly larger GDP than the country on which the tariff is imposed.
		Countries impose tariffs primarily to protect domestic industries.
		For any two given countries, at least one has already imposed a tariff on some or all of the other country's exports.
		Disputes over trade relations can often be settled between leaders of country without the imposition of tariffs.
		Most tariffs are imposed on luxury items as opposed to consumer staples.
		A country may impose a tariff on another country's exports even if there are currently no tariffs imposed by either country.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

The historical behavior of politicians with regard to trade relations

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