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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
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.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0%
(00:00)
correct 0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 1
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good folks here ..
An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic.The US neutrality acts 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 USA 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?
A)The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody civil war. B)Diplomatic relations between the USA and Balaland Republic were severed last year. C)The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic. D)The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens,but rather a consortium of individuals from abroad. E)Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good folks here ..
An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic.The US neutrality acts 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 USA 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?
A)The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody civil war. B)Diplomatic relations between the USA and Balaland Republic were severed last year. C)The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic. D)The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens,but rather a consortium of individuals from abroad. E)Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched.
Show more
If we even find the signal of war, or the severed relation btw US and Balaland Republic, the investigation must NOT be lauched. Right?
Clearly B is only one mention the signal of war
A. the civil war in BRepublic may or may not affect the relation btw US and BR, C. strenthens the argument by saying that "only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic." D. Who funds the training of recruits is IRRELEVANT to the argument E. strenthens rather than weakens the argument by saying that an investigation is necessary
Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good folks here ..
An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic.The US neutrality acts 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 USA 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?
A)The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody civil war. B)Diplomatic relations between the USA and Balaland Republic were severed last year. C)The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic. D)The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens,but rather a consortium of individuals from abroad. E)Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched.
If we even find the signal of war, or the severed relation btw US and Balaland Republic, the investigation must NOT be lauched. Right?
Clearly B is only one mention the signal of war
A. the civil war in BRepublic may or may not affect the relation btw US and BR, C. strenthens the argument by saying that "only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic." D. Who funds the training of recruits is IRRELEVANT to the argument E. strenthens rather than weakens the argument by saying that an investigation is necessary
Show more
B is incorrect because the law would be violated whether the US had ties with BR or not. C states that no laws are violated since it is only a training exercise (and not an actual "military campaign").
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.