Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 21:35

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
Followers: 1

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

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.
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 547
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 482 [0], given: 2

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2009, 21:01
C
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1902
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1122 [0], given: 1

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
_________________
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1553
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 02:45
Agree with C.
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
Followers: 1

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

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 12:00
OA is C.
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 737
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 693 [0], given: 99

Re: CR - Balaland Republic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2009, 14:50
late but mine also C.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 279
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 2

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").
Re: CR - Balaland Republic   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2009, 15:04
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Should we require OA with post of each question? 0 29 Oct 2009, 13:08
1 Attention - this forum has a new posting requirement - you 2 02 Sep 2009, 08:07
Because I doubt the correctness of the OA, so I post this 6 15 May 2009, 01:17
1 I am looking for good explanation. I have the OA... Stage 12 27 Oct 2009, 11:52
All all those who think they are good at CR. 12 28 Aug 2007, 20:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by