CR - Official - Seven countries signed a treaty

My reasoining would be that C is wrong because it cites a well-founded excuse, whereas the stem says the treaty is binding. Allowing an excuse to be well-founded appears to contradict the treaty terms.

I think I would go with C on this one. I'm not an expert but here are my reasons.

P1: Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date.
P2: The actions of each are conditional on the simultaneous action taken by the other countries.
P3: Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

In this passage there are three facts and no conclusion. We need to identify a possibility (scenario) that could result from the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty.

(A) "The compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty" Incorrect. The treaty does not specify a way to postpone the date. Thus, this is not a scenario that could result from 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" Incorrect. The treaty states that all seven countries are bound to perform the specified actions. The passage does not mention provisions for one of the countries not participating. This is also not a scenario that could result based on the terms of the treaty.

(C) "Each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance" Correct. The treaty is "conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries". This means that if one country does not perform then the other countries are not obligated to perform. Performance by the countries is "simultaneous" and each country has to notify the other countries after it has completed its action.

This leaves open the possibility that each country will not perform the action based on the fact that they don't know if the other countries performed and thus whether they are obligated to perform. This is a legitimate excuse for not performing per the terms of the treaty. Therefore, the simultaneous-action provision could result in all of the countries having a well-founded excuse not to perform the actions in this treaty.

(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" Incorrect. This is not true. The treaty specifies for "simultaneous action" by the countries. Additionally, we are looking for a scenario that could result from the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty. This answer describes terms of the treaty and not a scenario that could result from the treaty.

(E) "There was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete" Incorrect. It is true that there is no mention of when the actions are to be complete. However, we are looking for a scenario that could result from the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty. This answer describes terms of the treaty and not a scenario that could result from the treaty.

Do you know the OA for this one?

IMO answer is C , want to know the OA..

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"

D will lead to deadlock if each of the countries keeps waiting for another country to finish action. This is what lophole is , isn't it ?

GMATMadeEasy wrote:

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"

D will lead to deadlock if each of the countries keeps waiting for another country to finish action. This is what lophole is , isn't it ?

Hi GMATMadeEasy,

The question is not asking for a loophole. The question is asking for a possibility that could result from the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty. The answer should follow directly from the terms of the treaty.

(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.

We are looking for a possible scenario that could result from this treaty. This answer does not describe any kind of scenario. This answer attempts to describe the terms of the treaty. However, it does not even accurately describe the terms of the treaty. The terms of the treaty are that each country simultaneously perform specified actions on a certain fixed date. After they perform these actions they are to notify the other countries. This answer has it backwards. It states that the countries should wait for notification before performing the actions.

The problem with this treaty that it calls for the "conditional simultaneous action". "Conditional" means that if one country does not perform, then the other countries are not obligated to perform. "Simultaneous" means they should all perform the action at the exact same time.

The only way a country can legally get out of performing the actions is if one of the other countries does not perform. If the actions are to be done simultaneously and they are conditional on every country performing, then how does a country know if it is obligated to perform? Because performance is simultaneous each country will have no knowledge of whether the other countries performed. It is therefore possible that no country will perform and all of the countries will have a well-founded excuse as to why they did not perform. Answer choice C describes such a possibility.

excellent. your explanations are brilliant.