It is currently 16 Dec 2017, 07:17

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2009, 19:56
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

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.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 538

Kudos [?]: 628 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2009, 20:01
C

Kudos [?]: 628 [0], given: 2

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1878

Kudos [?]: 1472 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Premium Member
Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2009, 23:30
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
_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1472 [0], given: 1

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1530

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2009, 01:45
Agree with C.

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2009, 11:00
OA is C.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 727

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 99

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2009, 13:50
late but mine also C.

Kudos [?]: 883 [0], given: 99

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 276

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2009, 14:04
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").

Kudos [?]: 120 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - Balaland Republic   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2009, 14:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.