Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
29 Jan 2026, 23:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
32% (01:32) correct
68%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 111
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Some analysts argue that a military conflict between the United States and China would severely damage the global economy. They claim that because the U.S. and China are the world’s two largest economies and are deeply interconnected through trade and supply chains, a war between them would inevitably lead to a prolonged global recession.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the analysts’ argument?
A. Many multinational corporations have already begun diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the United States or China.
B. Previous conflicts between major powers have often resulted in short-term economic disruptions followed by rapid recovery.
C. Several developing economies rely more heavily on regional trade than on trade with either the United States or China.
D. Both the United States and China have strong domestic markets that could partially offset losses from reduced international trade.
E. Governments around the world maintain emergency economic policies designed to stabilize markets during geopolitical crises.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the analysts’ argument?
A. Many multinational corporations have already begun diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the United States or China.
B. Previous conflicts between major powers have often resulted in short-term economic disruptions followed by rapid recovery.
C. Several developing economies rely more heavily on regional trade than on trade with either the United States or China.
D. Both the United States and China have strong domestic markets that could partially offset losses from reduced international trade.
E. Governments around the world maintain emergency economic policies designed to stabilize markets during geopolitical crises.
29 Jan 2026, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument assumes that U.S.–China interdependence is unavoidable and overwhelming. If supply chains are already being diversified, then a war would not inevitably cause the severe global damage the analysts predict — directly weakening the core assumption.
A weakens the argument because it shows global dependence on U.S.–China trade is already decreasing, undermining the claim that a war would inevitably cause a global recession.
A weakens the argument because it shows global dependence on U.S.–China trade is already decreasing, undermining the claim that a war would inevitably cause a global recession.
atenim
30 Jan 2026, 00:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Some analysts argue that a military conflict between the United States and China would severely damage the global economy. They claim that because the U.S. and China are the world’s two largest economies and are deeply interconnected through trade and supply chains, a war between them would inevitably lead to a prolonged global recession.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the analysts’ argument?
The analysts argue that a US China war would inevitably cause a prolonged global recession because the two largest economies are deeply interconnected through trade and supply chains.
A. Many multinational corporations have already begun diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the United States or China.
This weakens the most. If companies are already diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the US or China, then the “deeply interconnected supply chains” premise is less true, so the analysts’ claim of an inevitable, prolonged global recession loses a lot of its force. I’d say this most directly attacks their stated mechanism.
B. Previous conflicts between major powers have often resulted in short-term economic disruptions followed by rapid recovery.
This weakens somewhat, but it is a loose comparison. “Previous conflicts” vary a lot, and this does not directly address today’s US China trade and supply chain linkage, which is the argument’s main reason.
C. Several developing economies rely more heavily on regional trade than on trade with either the United States or China.
This weakens a little. Some developing economies being more regionally focused reduces exposure for those economies, but it does not show the global economy would avoid a major downturn if the two largest economies clash.
D. Both the United States and China have strong domestic markets that could partially offset losses from reduced international trade.
This weakens a little. Strong domestic markets might cushion the US and China themselves, but that does not directly prevent global spillovers from disrupted trade, supply chains, and financial confidence.
E. Governments around the world maintain emergency economic policies designed to stabilize markets during geopolitical crises.
This weakens a little. Emergency policies might stabilize markets, but the statement is vague and does not show they would be sufficient to prevent a prolonged recession in a war scenario.
Answer: (A)
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the analysts’ argument?
The analysts argue that a US China war would inevitably cause a prolonged global recession because the two largest economies are deeply interconnected through trade and supply chains.
A. Many multinational corporations have already begun diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the United States or China.
This weakens the most. If companies are already diversifying their supply chains away from heavy dependence on either the US or China, then the “deeply interconnected supply chains” premise is less true, so the analysts’ claim of an inevitable, prolonged global recession loses a lot of its force. I’d say this most directly attacks their stated mechanism.
B. Previous conflicts between major powers have often resulted in short-term economic disruptions followed by rapid recovery.
This weakens somewhat, but it is a loose comparison. “Previous conflicts” vary a lot, and this does not directly address today’s US China trade and supply chain linkage, which is the argument’s main reason.
C. Several developing economies rely more heavily on regional trade than on trade with either the United States or China.
This weakens a little. Some developing economies being more regionally focused reduces exposure for those economies, but it does not show the global economy would avoid a major downturn if the two largest economies clash.
D. Both the United States and China have strong domestic markets that could partially offset losses from reduced international trade.
This weakens a little. Strong domestic markets might cushion the US and China themselves, but that does not directly prevent global spillovers from disrupted trade, supply chains, and financial confidence.
E. Governments around the world maintain emergency economic policies designed to stabilize markets during geopolitical crises.
This weakens a little. Emergency policies might stabilize markets, but the statement is vague and does not show they would be sufficient to prevent a prolonged recession in a war scenario.
Answer: (A)
