Last visit was: 28 Apr 2026, 05:34 It is currently 28 Apr 2026, 05:34
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,948
Own Kudos:
811,695
 [8]
Given Kudos: 105,927
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,948
Kudos: 811,695
 [8]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
aymeric78000
Joined: 21 Mar 2024
Last visit: 24 Jan 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 37
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Madhvendrasinh
Joined: 01 Feb 2024
Last visit: 26 Feb 2025
Posts: 110
Own Kudos:
63
 [1]
Given Kudos: 200
Posts: 110
Kudos: 63
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
diasdexter766
Joined: 15 Sep 2023
Last visit: 10 Mar 2026
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
23
 [3]
Given Kudos: 62
Location: India
Posts: 35
Kudos: 23
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option C works as the golden rule for a weaken argument is to 'supply new information to the argument' without changing the premise or tampering with the premise of the Argument.­

Both D and E are Irrelevant to the argument, D talks about funding which does not impact the conclusion and E talks about charges which does not impact the conclusion.­
User avatar
diasdexter766
Joined: 15 Sep 2023
Last visit: 10 Mar 2026
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 62
Location: India
Posts: 35
Kudos: 23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
aymeric78000
Is it answer C ? If it isn't the case, can anyone provide me with explanations ?

 
­Option C works as the golden rule for a weaken argument is to 'supply new information to the argument' without changing the premise or tampering with the premise of the Argument.­

Both D and E are Irrelevant to the argument, D talks about funding which does not impact the conclusion and E talks about charges which does not impact the conclusion.­
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 28 Apr 2026
Posts: 109,948
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 105,927
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 109,948
Kudos: 811,695
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
­An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits ot fight against the Balaland Republic. THe US Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the US and the Balaland Republic we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following if true would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland republic is currently engaged in a bloody escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the US and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event US goes to war against Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is launched.


­
­

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



C

U.S. law forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in military campaigns against countries unless the United States is at war with those countries. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, the author concludes that the recruits being trained to fight against the Balaland Republic are defying U.S. law. But if, as (C) asserts, the recruits are being trained to fight only if a war is declared, then they're not in defiance of U.S. law. Being prepared for battle is different from actually engaging in it.

(A)'s no weakener; we can't assume that the country's escalating civil war justifies military action against it. In (B), severing diplomatic ties doesn't go far enough to show that training recruits is justifiable under U.S. law. As for (D), who funds the rebels was never mentioned by the author and is irrelevant. And as for (E), the author starts off calling for an investigation, so he doesn't assert that charges should be brought without launching an investigation first.­
User avatar
Sujithz001
Joined: 09 Jun 2024
Last visit: 06 Feb 2026
Posts: 101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Posts: 101
Kudos: 46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB chetan2u bb Bunuel

I chose D over C. Reason being - D says training is funded by a group abroad. Since the group is based out of abroad & not the citizen of the States, they can't be legally punished right?

Can you help me resolve this doubt?
Bunuel
­An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits ot fight against the Balaland Republic. THe US Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the US and the Balaland Republic we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following if true would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland republic is currently engaged in a bloody escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the US and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event US goes to war against Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is launched.


­
User avatar
chetan2u
User avatar
GMAT Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Last visit: 27 Apr 2026
Posts: 11,231
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 335
Status:Math and DI Expert
Location: India
Concentration: Human Resources, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81
Posts: 11,231
Kudos: 45,034
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sujithz001
KarishmaB chetan2u bb Bunuel

I chose D over C. Reason being - D says training is funded by a group abroad. Since the group is based out of abroad & not the citizen of the States, they can't be legally punished right?

Can you help me resolve this doubt?
Bunuel
­An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits ot fight against the Balaland Republic. THe US Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the US and the Balaland Republic we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following if true would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland republic is currently engaged in a bloody escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the US and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event US goes to war against Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is launched.


­
Hi

It is not that the group is operating from some other country. The funding may be from other countries but the law can apply on the group.(nothing suggests otherwise)

But I believe that there would be better set of questions to practice from.
User avatar
Sujithz001
Joined: 09 Jun 2024
Last visit: 06 Feb 2026
Posts: 101
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Posts: 101
Kudos: 46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks chetan2u

Would it be possible for you to suggest a better practice set of questions/sources?
chetan2u
Sujithz001
KarishmaB chetan2u bb Bunuel

I chose D over C. Reason being - D says training is funded by a group abroad. Since the group is based out of abroad & not the citizen of the States, they can't be legally punished right?

Can you help me resolve this doubt?
Bunuel
­An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits ot fight against the Balaland Republic. THe US Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the US and the Balaland Republic we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following if true would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland republic is currently engaged in a bloody escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the US and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event US goes to war against Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is launched.


­
Hi

It is not that the group is operating from some other country. The funding may be from other countries but the law can apply on the group.(nothing suggests otherwise)

But I believe that there would be better set of questions to practice from.
User avatar
shivansh2501
Joined: 13 Dec 2024
Last visit: 02 Dec 2025
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 24
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
­An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits ot fight against the Balaland Republic. THe US Neutrality Act plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the US and the Balaland Republic we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law.

Which of the following if true would most weaken the argument above?

A. The Balaland republic is currently engaged in a bloody escalating civil war.

B. Diplomatic relations between the US and the Balaland Republic were severed last year.

C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event US goes to war against Balaland Republic.

D. The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad

E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is launched.


­
Conclusion- We should bring charges against the private group that is training individuals to fight against Balaland Republic.

We need to weaken this.

A. This is in an internal matter of the Balaland Republic, but it doesn't in any way show whether we should bring charges against these individuals or not, so irrelevant

B. Who cares if the diplomatic relations between the US and Balaland Republic were severed? It doesn't help us in saying that we should release the charges on these people.

C. This is precisely what we are looking for, the group is training only for an escalation, they mean no harm, and hence, we should not bring any charges on these individuals

D. This a clear strengthener, it says the funding is from individuals from abroad, which makes the group all the more suspicious, and makes it even more tempting to press charges against this group

E. Not relevant, this states charges cannot be brought, but we need to find a choice which helps us in determining whether charges can be brought or not, this does not help us evaluate, but rather provides a strong statement.

(C) is correct as per OA.
User avatar
A_Nishith
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 452
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 452
Kudos: 203
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We need to weaken this.

A. This is in an internal matter of the Balaland Republic, but it doesn't in any way show whether we should bring charges against these individuals or not, so irrelevant

B. Who cares if the diplomatic relations between the US and Balaland Republic were severed? It doesn't help us in saying that we should release the charges on these people.

C. This is precisely what we are looking for, the group is training only for an escalation, they mean no harm, and hence, we should not bring any charges on these individuals

D. This a clear strengthener, it says the funding is from individuals from abroad, which makes the group all the more suspicious, and makes it even more tempting to press charges against this group

E. Not relevant, this states charges cannot be brought, but we need to find a choice which helps us in determining whether charges can be brought or not, this does not help us evaluate, but rather provides a strong statement.

(C) is correct as per OA.
User avatar
A_Nishith
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 452
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 452
Kudos: 203
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We need to weaken this.

A. This is in an internal matter of the Balaland Republic, but it doesn't in any way show whether we should bring charges against these individuals or not, so irrelevant

B. Who cares if the diplomatic relations between the US and Balaland Republic were severed? It doesn't help us in saying that we should release the charges on these people.

C. This is precisely what we are looking for, the group is training only for an escalation, they mean no harm, and hence, we should not bring any charges on these individuals

D. This a clear strengthener, it says the funding is from individuals from abroad, which makes the group all the more suspicious, and makes it even more tempting to press charges against this group

E. Not relevant, this states charges cannot be brought, but we need to find a choice which helps us in determining whether charges can be brought or not, this does not help us evaluate, but rather provides a strong statement.

Answer: C
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
507 posts
363 posts