It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 10:41

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be

Author Message
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 16:37
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated by one of the two sides to the dispute. Negotiations will be held only if other countries have pressured the two sides to negotiate; an agreement will emerge only if other countries continue such pressure throughout the negotiations. But no negotiations will be held until international troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated their ability to counter any aggression from either side, thus suppressing a major incentive for the two sides to resume fighting.
If the statements above are true, and if negotiations between the two sides do begin soon, at the time those negotiations begin each of the following must also be true EXCEPT:
(A) The cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides.
(B) International troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated that they can counter aggression from either of the two sides.
(C) A major incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities has been suppressed.
(D) Other countries have exerted pressure on the two sides to the dispute.
(E) The negotiationsâ€™ reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries.
_________________

Regards, S

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 17:25
I would say (E).

I negotiations may begin but are not guaranteed to result in agreement. The argument is just talking about begining negotiations. The agreement comes later.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1430

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 17:35
"E"....using CR rule....if A, then B....means if no B, then no A.

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 17:43
Nested Logic. Fun!. This is a tough question.

A.

Makes a definitive statement that the ceasefire has not been violated by either country. Perhaps they violated the cease fire in the past, but have been quiet so that they can engage in negotiations. Specific ceasefire is not called out. Right now they have not violated cease fire doesnt imply that they have never violated ceasefire.

E makes the point that the agreement is dependent on other countries exerting pressure, which is true whether the agreement is reached or not and even if we are in the early stages of negotiation and is explicitly stated in the stem. The fact that for the agreement to be reached, countries have to exert pressure and continue exerting it is true at the time the question is refering to...

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 17:59
[quote="prep_gmat"]Nested Logic. Fun!. This is a tough question.

What is Nested logic mate?
_________________

Regards, S

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: San Jose

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2005, 22:17
A.

Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated by one of the two sides to the dispute.

No negotiations => Cease-fire violation. X => Y scenario.

X => Y does not mean (Not X) => (Not Y).
_________________

Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new. -Albert Einstein.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 10:07
it makes sense now. (E) cannot be it.

It has to be (A).

One explanation could be that both the parties may have already violated the previous ceasefire and were brought under control. In order for it not to repeat something as mentioned in the argument must be done.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 184

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2005, 11:38
yes A seems to be the best answere.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1205

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

Location: Taiwan

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2005, 03:20
Hello, guys
could you help me how to attain answer A?

Argument

if negotiation --> then no violate cease-fire

if other countrys' pressure -->then negotiation

if other country's continuing pressure --> then agreement

if international troops have ability --> then negotiation

if international troops have ability --> then suppress incentive

Now, negotiation arises,

so we can get,

(E) other countrys' actions exist
(D) Other countries have exerted pressure
(C) A major incentive has been suppressed
(B) International troops have the ability

Any body help me how to get A?

Kudos [?]: 844 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2228

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 14:07
Cease fire will be broken unless negotiation begin soon. (Cease fire will stop if no negotiation. ) A (ceasefire)=>B(negotiation) Negotiation is necessary condition of cease fire.
Negotiation will begin only if other countries pressure. B(negotiation)=>C(other country) Other country is necessary condition for negotiation.
Negotiation will begin only if international troops can counter agreesion from both side. B (negotiation)=>D (international troops) Troops is necessary condition for negotiation.
Agreement only if other countries continue to pressure. E (agreement)=>C (other country)

Negotiation begins. (B)

(A) The cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides.
No. A=>B but not necessarily B=>A. If there's no negotiation, then cease fire will be broken. If there is negotiation, there may or may not be cease fire.

(I think in the sticky my explanation about "unless" is wrong. I will correct it upon further examination.)

(B) International troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated that they can counter aggression from either of the two sides.
Yes B=>D

(C) A major incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities has been suppressed.
Yes B=>D'

(D) Other countries have exerted pressure on the two sides to the dispute.
Yes B=>C

(E) The negotiationsâ€™ reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries.
Yes. C is the necessary condition for E.

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 19:02
(A) The cease-fire has not been violated by either of the two sides.
- True. Prescence of international troops must enforce cease-fire before negotiations can start

(B) International troops enforcing the cease-fire have demonstrated that they can counter aggression from either of the two sides.
- True. Stated in passage.

(C) A major incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities has been suppressed.
- True. International troops enforcing the cease-fire has to be able to suppress the incentive for the two sides to resume hostilities

(D) Other countries have exerted pressure on the two sides to the dispute.
- True.

(E) The negotiationsâ€™ reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries.
- This is the answer. In the passage, we're told 2 conditions for negotations to take place:
1) Countries pressuring them to the negotiation table
2) International troops demonstrating their capability to suppress agression from both sides
Choice E states that negotiations' reaching an agreement depends in part on actions of other countries. But from passage, we know it depends wholly on action of other countries.

E it is.

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2228

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 19:09
"an agreement will emerge only if other countries continue such pressure throughout the negotiations"

This means other countries pressure is necessary condition for the agreement, but not sufficient. In other words the pressure from other countries only cannot garantee an agreement will emerge. The agreement depends on the pressure from other countries, as well as some other things. In part is correct.

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 19:21
Honghu,

'The agreement depends on the pressure from other countries, as well as some other things'
The 'other things' you mentioned are continuous pressure from other countries. International troops are also provided by other countries. None of the 'other things' mentioned in fact are from the 2 countries in dispute. As such, I find E more appealing

(E) The negotiationsâ€™ reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries <-- the actions here are the pressure to beging negotiation, continuous pressure to reach agreeement, and international troop prescence to ensrue negotiation can start first of all. From the looks of it, the outcome is wholly dependent on other countries' contribution.

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 349

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Location: Manhattan

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 19:44
prep_gmat wrote:
Nested Logic. Fun!. This is a tough question.

A.

Makes a definitive statement that the ceasefire has not been violated by either country. Perhaps they violated the cease fire in the past, but have been quiet so that they can engage in negotiations. Specific ceasefire is not called out. Right now they have not violated cease fire doesnt imply that they have never violated ceasefire.

E makes the point that the agreement is dependent on other countries exerting pressure, which is true whether the agreement is reached or not and even if we are in the early stages of negotiation and is explicitly stated in the stem. The fact that for the agreement to be reached, countries have to exert pressure and continue exerting it is true at the time the question is refering to...

fully agree with your reasoning here...

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2228

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 21:32
ywilfred wrote:
Honghu,

'The agreement depends on the pressure from other countries, as well as some other things'
The 'other things' you mentioned are continuous pressure from other countries. International troops are also provided by other countries. None of the 'other things' mentioned in fact are from the 2 countries in dispute.

The point is, other countries are a necessary condition. In other words, without the other countries, there won't be an agreement. However, other countries is not a sufficient condition. Even if the other countries continue to pressure, and the the troops are there, and so on, it is still possible that an agreement is not reached. Maybe one of the leaders on one side suddenly dies and the whole thing falls apart. Who knows. The point is, the stem says an agreement will not be reached without other countries' pressures. But it didn't say if other countries keep pressing we will be able to get an agreement for sure.

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 21:40
HongHu wrote:
ywilfred wrote:
Honghu,

'The agreement depends on the pressure from other countries, as well as some other things'
The 'other things' you mentioned are continuous pressure from other countries. International troops are also provided by other countries. None of the 'other things' mentioned in fact are from the 2 countries in dispute.

The point is, other countries are a necessary condition. In other words, without the other countries, there won't be an agreement. However, other countries is not a sufficient condition. Even if the other countries continue to pressure, and the the troops are there, and so on, it is still possible that an agreement is not reached. Maybe one of the leaders on one side suddenly dies and the whole thing falls apart. Who knows. The point is, the stem says an agreement will not be reached without other countries' pressures. But it didn't say if other countries keep pressing we will be able to get an agreement for sure.

Thanks Honghu, that really helped. I didn't know there was so much information pertaining to nescessary and sufficiency between those lines !

Kudos [?]: 453 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2228

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2005, 21:47
Actually trying to explain my point has cleared my thought as well. (Let me discovered a mistake of myself too. ) Thanks for the great discussions!

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 0

13 Mar 2005, 21:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.