12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 8: As polar ice

Stimulus :

Premise : Policy maker recommends Arctic shipping infra. to reduce dependence on chokepoints.
Conclusion : Arctic maritime development is important to ensure long term stability

Let's look at options :

A : This look promising, because what if this new route is not reliable then there is no point of developing arctic infrastructure --- Hold

B : Argument doesn't talk above economic reason. even if these new routes are expensive, there could be other reason which could justify the spending. ---- Incorrect

C : The argument doesn't rule out flexibility ---- Incorrect

D : this is helpful but not necessary assumption, even risk of disruption is enough to motivate hedging ---- Incorrect

E : this is too strong and irrelevant --- Incorrect

Our answer is A

gchandana

Joined: 16 May 2024

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 192

Own Kudos:

141

[1]

Given Kudos: 170

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 192

Kudos: 141

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 02:40

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Yes, if the Arctic sea routes are not reliable, then one cannot conclude them as a means to mitigate strategic vulnerabilities in global trades from the evidence that the report says they are a necessary strategic hedge for long-term stability.
B. The costs discussion is not relevant here.
C. If we see, the report concludes Arctic development as a necessary thing, not sufficient. Or it doesn't say that only infrastructure can help, or that route flexibility can't mitigate anything.
D. Whether they remain vulnerable or not, given the history of events, Arctic developments could still be the necessary step.
E. This talks about the goal, which is not the problem here. The plan to achieve the goal is what is being discussed.

Option A.

Bunuel

adityamntr

Joined: 15 Jul 2023

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 111

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 13

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Booth '27 Fuqua '27 Kellog '27

Posts: 111

Kudos: 81

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 03:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

A) if this is not true, it will weaken the arguement that using the artci sea routes is feasible solution. hence it is an essential assumption
B) cost is not consdered in the arguement's conculsion
C)this could be explaination of why artic routes are fine
D)does not relates to the arg conculsion
E)it is ont about confirming the feawbility of routes. hence not a requried assumpton

Dereno

Joined: 22 May 2020

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,398

Own Kudos:

1,373

[1]

Given Kudos: 425

Products:

Posts: 1,398

Kudos: 1,373

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Polar ice is receding because of climate change, this has made the policy makers, who are advocates of developing Arctic Maritime infrastructure- to mitigate strategic vulnerabilities in global trade logistics. So, this means the existing global trade logistic routes are getting more crowded or getting more tight, so to lessen it, we need artic route.

A supporting view point is mentioned to strengthen the arctic route strategy, as this would reduce the pressure at choke points (Suez Canal) , enabling a better trade between Europe and East Asia.

Thus a conclusion is made, given the fact on recent distruptions in southern sea lanes, arctic development seems a promising prospect for long term stability in transcontinental shipping.

A) This addresses the support to the long term stability aspect in the conclusion. If arctic route is able to provide sustained reliable navigation through out the year apart from the traditional routes , then the conclusion stands true.

If we negate the option, Artic routes will not offer sustainable and reliable transport routes for the entire year, this cannot be considered as a substitute for the existing traditional routes. Hence, the conclusion falls apart.

This is the correct answer.

B) This compares the efficiency aspect of polar transit, which is greater than the capital costs and environmental risks associated with northern maritime route. We are not taking about financial analysis or cost benefit aspect of the route. The question is taking about strategic and operational aspect of the route. Hence Wrong.

C) This offers an out of box solution, which is completely out of context to the question at hand. Hence, Wrong.

D) If the southern choke points are more likely to remain vulnerable over the next several decades, then this remains a strong reason as to why we should shift to arctic route. This is actually a strengthener. Hence, Wrong.

E) This option provides a premise to support the view point generated in the question. Hence, wrong.

Option A

kapoora10

Joined: 13 Jul 2024

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 109

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Concentration: Real Estate, Sustainability

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q88 V74 DI84 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

GPA: 8.03

WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Management)

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 655 Q85 V83 DI80 Verified score

Posts: 109

Kudos: 95

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

Assessing each statement:
A=> This is required as the routes will work as a substitute of traditional passages. Keep for now.
B=> We need strategic arguments not economic. Eliminate.
C=> Too strong and unnecessary. Eliminate.
D=> It strengthens but is not a required assumption. Eliminate.
E=> This is behavioural aspect and does not impact the argument at hand. Eliminate.

Final Answer => A

redandme21

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 97

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 97

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 04:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Correct. This directly addresses the feasibility of using Arctic routes. Without this, the "necessary strategic hedge" falls apart.

B Irrelevant. The argument says "necessary strategic hedge", not profitable.

C Not necessarily assumed. The argument could still hold even if patterns are flexible.

D This is already implied by "given recent disruptions" and "long-term stability".

E But policymakers are advocating investment. Maybe they can incentivize usage even if private actors prioritize costs. Not strictly required.

IMO A

arnab24

Joined: 16 Jan 2024

Last visit: 25 Feb 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 7

Location: India

Schools: ISB '26

GPA: 8.80

Products:

Schools: ISB '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 81

25 Dec 2025, 04:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

The main conclusion of the argument is Policymakers have increasingly advocated for the development for the development of Arctic maritime infrastructure as a means to mitigate strategic vulnerabilities in global trade logistics. It is getting support from report that investment would reduce dependence on Choked Suez Canal , and development is necessary for long term stability. It means if other than this is adopted it will not be sufficient which is required assumption. Now let's check options:

(A) It's incorrect as Artic sea routes option will not play role here. Even it's suitable , it will not be a necessary condition.
(B)Incorrect , Shipping efficiency outweighing capital costs is nit necessary condition. Even we are not talking about anything related to cost.
(C) It's correct since if we negate it then it is saying current shipping patterns are not rigid and alternate shipping route can be a option making infra investment not a necessary condition. The argument will fall.
(D) It's incorrect since we are not concerned with the timelines of disruption.
(E) It's incorrect , route decision primarily based on cost is something not discussed and not a necessary condition.

C is the correct answer

Bunuel

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Right answer. Without this, Arctic infrastructure cannot function as a hedge or substitute.

B Not required. The argument is strategic, not a cost–benefit proof.

C Irrelevant to whether Arctic routes themselves are viable.

D It strengthens the argument but is not strictly required. "Recent disruptions" are already cited.

E Adoption could still occur for mixed reasons, not for prioritizing long-term resilience over short-term costs.

Answer A

Reon

Joined: 16 Sep 2025

Last visit: 28 Mar 2026

Posts: 134

Own Kudos:

121

[1]

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 134

Kudos: 121

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

As polar ice continues to recede due to climate change, policymakers have increasingly advocated for the development of Arctic maritime infrastructure as a means to mitigate strategic vulnerabilities in global trade logistics. A recent policy analysis contends that expanded investment in northern shipping corridors (including the construction of ice-hardened ports and specialized vessels) would reduce dependence on chokepoints like the Suez Canal, thereby enhancing the resilience and efficiency of trade between Europe and East Asia. The report concludes that, given recent disruptions in southern sea lanes, Arctic development constitutes a necessary strategic hedge for long-term stability in transcontinental shipping.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

A. Arctic sea routes will offer sufficiently reliable navigability over a sustained portion of the year to serve as a practical substitute for traditional passages such as the Suez Canal. (For the conclusion to hold, Arctic routes must be usable in practice and not only in theory. And in practice it requires assuming that Arctic sea lanes will be reliably navigable for a significant portion of the year. Negate of this option also destroys the conclusion) Correct

B. The marginal gains in shipping efficiency associated with polar transit will outweigh the capital costs and environmental risks involved in developing northern maritime corridors. (The arguement only only claims that arctic routes are strategically necessary) Wrong

C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions. (The arguement does not rule out other possibility like route flexibility, it only supports infrastructure investment as one of solutions) Wrong

D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades. (This option is already told in the argument, it is a premise not assumption) Wrong

E. Major actors in transcontinental shipping will adopt route decisions primarily based on considerations of long-term strategic resilience rather than short-term operational costs. (How route decisions are made isn't a necessary assumption) Wrong

A

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

A If we negate this "Arctic routes are not reliably navigable for a sustained part of the year", so they're unreliable or only rarely open, the conclusion fails. Correct answer.

B If we negate this "Gains do not outweigh costs/risks": but maybe policymakers still think it's a necessary hedge for security reasons, even if costly.

C If we negate this "Patterns are flexible" then ships could reroute temporarily without new Arctic infrastructure. This weakens "necessary strategic hedge" but it doesn't destroy it. Not as direct as A.

D The text says "given recent disruptions in southern sea lanes", so it implies they think vulnerability persists.

E This is not an asumption beacuse Arctic routes could still serve as a backup or occasional alternative even if companies usually choose cheaper routes.

The answer is A

Kinshook

Major Poster

Joined: 03 Jun 2019

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,985

Own Kudos:

5,858

[1]

Given Kudos: 163

Location: India

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Engineering (Transportation)

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 CBS '26 Wharton '26

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 5,985

Kudos: 5,858

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

As polar ice continues to recede due to climate change, policymakers have increasingly advocated for the development of Arctic maritime infrastructure as a means to mitigate strategic vulnerabilities in global trade logistics.
A recent policy analysis contends that expanded investment in northern shipping corridors (including the construction of ice-hardened ports and specialized vessels) would reduce dependence on chokepoints like the Suez Canal, thereby enhancing the resilience and efficiency of trade between Europe and East Asia.

Conclusion: The report concludes that, given recent disruptions in southern sea lanes, Arctic development constitutes a necessary strategic hedge for long-term stability in transcontinental shipping.

Objective: Find the assumption

Pre-thinking:
For the Arctic maritime infrastructure is useful only if it is available and reliance enough to become a viable alternative to traditional passage such as Suez Canal. \
If assumption is negated, the conclusion falls apart (Negation test)

Options:

A. If arctic sea routes will NOT offer sufficiently reliable navigability over a sustained portion of the year to serve as a practical substitute for traditional passage such as the Suez Canal, then they are not practically viable alternative and the Arctic development will NOT constitute a necessary strategic hedge for long-term stability in transcontinental shipping. (Negation test passed). Correct

B. The statement strengthens the argument since developing northern maritime corridors will require substantial investment but is NOT an assumption. The argument is also not concerned with the costs or profits but with a long-term strategic alternative. Incorrect

C. The argument does not require shipping patterns to be rigid but require them to be flexible. Incorrect

D. The argument is concerned with long-term strategic hedge in transcontinental shipping. Even if Southern trade checkpoints are NOT likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades, then also the Arctic maritime infrastructure may become long term strategic hedge for transcontinental shipping. (Negation test failed) Incorrect

E. The argument is concerned with long-term strategic alternatives and is NOT concerned with how major actors make route decisions and their prediction. Incorrect

IMO A

vasu1104

Joined: 10 Feb 2023

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 389

Own Kudos:

235

Given Kudos: 664

Location: Canada

Products:

Posts: 389

Kudos: 235

25 Dec 2025, 05:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

conclusion= due to recent disruption in southern sea lanes, arctic development constitutes a necessary strategic hedge for long term stability in transcontinental shipping.

reason= polar ice continues to recede due to climate change, policymakers advocating arctic maritime infrastructure to reduce vulnerabilities in global trade logistics.
investment in northern corridors would reduce dependence on suez canal, and increase the resilience and efficiency of trade between europe and east asia.

A. this rather strengthen it.
B. not concern about the marginal gains and capital costs and environmental risks.
C. but even if they are rigid they can still be useful and for that to move to new project doesnt add anything.
D. perfect. if southern sea lanes is going to suffer geopolitical risk on top of the recent disruption then it make sense to go ahead with the plan.
E. we are not concern with the comparison between resilience and operational cost.
ans D

Bunuel

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 05:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

A CORRECT. If ice or weather make the Arctic route too unreliable, investing in infrastructure won't create a real hedge.

B Even if the efficiency gains are small or costs are high, policymakers could still see the route as strategically necessary for security.

C The argument does not say flexibility is impossible, it only says having an additional route reduces vulnerability.

D The argument already cites recent disruptions as justification. Even if future risks were uncertain, Arctic routes could still be considered a hedge.

E The argument does not require companies to ignore costs entirely. Arctic routes could be used selectively or strategically without becoming the primary option.

The correct answer is A

MANASH94

Joined: 25 Jun 2025

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 89

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Location: India

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GPA: 2.9

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

Posts: 89

Kudos: 63

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

The premise of this argument centres around the idea that with the melting of polar ice, investments in infrastructure for Arctic shipping will allow for a decrease in reliance on southern trade routes (Suez Canal) while improving the resiliency and efficiency of trade between Europe and East Asia, particularly since the recent disruption of the supply chains. The conclusion drawn from this premise is that Arctic maritime development should be viewed as an essential strategic hedge for long term stability of transcontinental shipping.
The gap that need to be filled for this argument to be valid is: Are Arctic Routes going to be a viable enough alternative to existing routes so that they are reliable enough to result in a substantial decrease in our reliance on southern trade bottlenecks or chokepoints as it say?

Evaluating the options:
A. Arctic Sea routes will be navigable on a reliable basis for significantly longer periods than today. -Seems correct.
If Arctic routes can’t be reliably navigated, then investments made to develop these routes wouldn’t decrease our reliance on southern chokepoints like Suez Canal. Therefore, this assumption is the base of the argument.
B. The marginal return in terms of shipping efficiency outweighs the initial investment costs and long-term environmental impact of developing and investing in Arctic area shipping infrastructure. - Incorrect.
This is not a correct interpretation of the argument. The premise of the argument is focused on strategic resiliency, not cost- benefit from an environmental perspective.
C. The current rigid constraints of shipping patterns necessitate investment in infrastructure in order to enable trade between Europe and East Asia. -Incorrect
This is also too strong of a statement. The premise of the argument does not rule out the possibility of making other adjustments to adapt to existing challenges.

D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable for decades. Incorrect.
Helpful background, but not required. Even occasional disruptions could justify a hedge.

E. Shipping actors will prioritize long-term resilience over short-term costs. Incorrect.
This is not necessary. Governments could pursue the hedge even if firms are cost-focused.

For me the answer is A.

Bunuel

canopyinthecity

Joined: 12 Jul 2025

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 19

Posts: 92

Kudos: 61

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 06:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

Policymaker's View: As polar ice is receding, increase in development of infrastructure is needed for trade logistics.

Main Point: Arctic development is necessary for log term stability in transcontinental shipping.

Basis: More investment will reduce dependence on chokepoints.

(B), (C), (D), (E) - Irrelevant

(A) Correct. if the routes are not reliable then even with investment, shipping cannot occur. This is the assumption in the argument.

chasing725

Joined: 22 Jun 2025

Last visit: 13 Jan 2026

Posts: 176

Own Kudos:

173

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

Location: United States (OR)

Schools: Stanford

Posts: 176

Kudos: 173

[1]

25 Dec 2025, 07:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel