SajjadAhmad
Source: McGraw Hill GMAT
In order for a country to maintain diplomatic relations with another country, a country must disavow or deny certain objectionable practices, even though all parties know for a fact that the activities took place and were sanctioned by the government. Failure to follow this protocol results in a diplomatic crisis. Recently, Country Z captured a spy plane from Country X in its sovereign territory, a major offense. Country X quickly announced that the plane was engaging in routine flight drills and had accidentally entered Country Z’s airspace.
Which of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?
A. Country Z will now begin sending spy planes into Country X’s territory.
B. Country Z will immediately suspend diplomatic relations with Country X.
C. Diplomatic relations between Country Z and Country X will most likely continue as normal.
D. The plane from Country X was not engaged in spying.
E. Country Z believed Country X’s explanation for the plane’s presence in its airspace.
Dear
SajjadAhmad,
I'm happy to respond.
This is a low-quality question. The author of the question apparently was not acquainted with the rigorous logic that the GMAT employs on the CR questions. This question is logically loose.
A.
Country Z will now begin sending spy planes into Country X’s territory.No evidence for this.
B.
Country Z will immediately suspend diplomatic relations with Country X.Too extreme: Country X was trying to avoid a crisis, and this sounds like a crises.
C.
Diplomatic relations between Country Z and Country X will most likely continue as normal.It sounds as if Country X was trying to avoid a crisis. Are there only two possibilities, crisis and normal? If there's no crisis, does this mean the only other possibility is normal? This doesn't sound like international relationship in the world I know!!
Think about any relationship--a marriage, a friendship, customer-business, political alliance, etc. etc. Clearly, there are always more than the two possibilities "crisis" and "normal"!
D.
The plane from Country X was not engaged in spying.No reason to conclude that--in fact, the opposite is half-suggested.
E.
Country Z believed Country X’s explanation for the plane’s presence in its airspace.No reason to conclude that--in fact, the opposite is half-suggested.
Now, if (C) were something along the lines of "
Country X and Country Z will likely avoid a crisis," then that would be well supported. That would make it a very easy question: to make it a challenging question, the entire structure would need re-working.
Does all this make sense?
Mike