|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
21 Feb 2026, 21:26
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. 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.
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.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
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.
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.
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.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
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.
21 Feb 2026, 21:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
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.
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.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
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.
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.
This seems promising. If Arctic routes aren’t reliably navigable, even with climate change, then the whole idea of using them as a “strategic hedge” falls apart. If ships can’t actually use the Arctic routes consistently, it doesn't matter how much infrastructure you build. This is a must-have assumption.
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.
This sounds important, but it’s going into cost-benefit analysis, which the argument never dives into. The core claim isn’t “this will be more efficient” but it’s “this is necessary for long-term resilience.” So even if it’s not super efficient or cheap, it could still be justified as a strategic backup plan. So this is not a required assumption and it’s nice to have, but not essential.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
This is talking about how flexible (or inflexible) shipping routes are. But the argument isn’t comparing infrastructure vs. flexibility. It’s saying: “Arctic routes should be developed to act as a hedge.” This isn’t part of the core reasoning. It’s just extra noise.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
This is a tempting one. If the Suez and other chokepoints aren’t vulnerable in the long run, then maybe we don’t need an Arctic backup. But here's the thing: the argument is more about the need to diversify trade routes, not to fully replace them. Because even if Suez is fine 80% of the time, the Arctic route is still being positioned as a backup and not the main highway. So it's helpful, but not absolutely required.
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.
This is going too far into psychology and behavior of shipping companies. The argument isn’t claiming companies will instantly switch to Arctic routes because they’re resilient. It’s saying policymakers should develop Arctic infrastructure as a hedge.
Answer: A
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.
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.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
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.
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.
This seems promising. If Arctic routes aren’t reliably navigable, even with climate change, then the whole idea of using them as a “strategic hedge” falls apart. If ships can’t actually use the Arctic routes consistently, it doesn't matter how much infrastructure you build. This is a must-have assumption.
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.
This sounds important, but it’s going into cost-benefit analysis, which the argument never dives into. The core claim isn’t “this will be more efficient” but it’s “this is necessary for long-term resilience.” So even if it’s not super efficient or cheap, it could still be justified as a strategic backup plan. So this is not a required assumption and it’s nice to have, but not essential.
C. Current shipping patterns are sufficiently rigid that infrastructure investment, rather than route flexibility, is required to mitigate future disruptions.
This is talking about how flexible (or inflexible) shipping routes are. But the argument isn’t comparing infrastructure vs. flexibility. It’s saying: “Arctic routes should be developed to act as a hedge.” This isn’t part of the core reasoning. It’s just extra noise.
D. Southern trade chokepoints are likely to remain vulnerable to geopolitical or environmental disruptions over the next several decades.
This is a tempting one. If the Suez and other chokepoints aren’t vulnerable in the long run, then maybe we don’t need an Arctic backup. But here's the thing: the argument is more about the need to diversify trade routes, not to fully replace them. Because even if Suez is fine 80% of the time, the Arctic route is still being positioned as a backup and not the main highway. So it's helpful, but not absolutely required.
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.
This is going too far into psychology and behavior of shipping companies. The argument isn’t claiming companies will instantly switch to Arctic routes because they’re resilient. It’s saying policymakers should develop Arctic infrastructure as a hedge.
Answer: A
