Critical Reasoning

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that

A. the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty.

B. one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required.

C. each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance.

D. the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action.

E. there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be compete.

OA C

The treaty is set up in such a way that the actions of each county are conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. In other words, whether one country is required to or supposed to engage in certain actions depends on whether other countries have.

This setup leaves open the possibility that multiple countries will wait for each other to act and will maintain that they did not act because other countries did not.

So if multiple countries to not act in the ways specified by the treaty, conceivably they could all use the excuse that they did not need to or were not even supposed to comply because other countries did not.

So the correct answer is C.

Marty Murray wrote:The treaty is set up in such a way that the actions of each county are conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. In other words, whether one country is required to or supposed to engage in certain actions depends on whether other countries have.

This setup leaves open the possibility that multiple countries will wait for each other to act and will maintain that they did not act because other countries did not.

So if multiple countries to not act in the ways specified by the treaty, conceivably they could all use the excuse that they did not need to or were not even supposed to comply because other countries did not.

So the correct answer is C.

Why not E ?

It seems clear from the statement that the actions start on a certain fixed date but it is not specified when they are to be completed, it just says that a country must notify the rest when its action is completed.

Thanks![/spoiler]

ale_434 wrote:

Marty Murray wrote:The treaty is set up in such a way that the actions of each county are conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. In other words, whether one country is required to or supposed to engage in certain actions depends on whether other countries have.

This setup leaves open the possibility that multiple countries will wait for each other to act and will maintain that they did not act because other countries did not.

So if multiple countries to not act in the ways specified by the treaty, conceivably they could all use the excuse that they did not need to or were not even supposed to comply because other countries did not.

So the correct answer is C.

Why not E ?

It seems clear from the statement that the actions start on a certain fixed date but it is not specified when they are to be completed, it just says that a country must notify the rest when its action is completed.

Thanks![/spoiler]

Pay close attention to the language used in the argument: Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date

You've interpreted "to perform" as simply "to start." Try the following thought experiment. Imagine you're in the army. You receive the following order: "I expect you to perform duty 'x' today." At the end of the day, you've merely started duty x. Is your commanding officer happy with you?