GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 17 Jul 2018, 04:43

### 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

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

# Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2009, 20:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 488
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2009, 21:01
C
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1783
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 00:30
Kiski wrote:
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
_________________
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1477
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 02:45
Agree with C.
Intern
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 12:00
OA is C.
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 636
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 14:50
late but mine also C.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 253
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 15:04
sondenso wrote:
Kiski wrote:
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

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").

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
Re: CR - Balaland Republic   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2009, 15:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.