YKNSnow wrote:Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states
that countries closed out of any of another country's
markets should close some of their own markets to
the other country in order to pressure the other
country to reopen its markets. If every country acted
according to this theory, no country would trade with
any other.
The commentator's argument relies on which of the
following assumptions?
CR answer choices tend to have some validity, and their having validity can make choosing them tempting. The thing is that while an answer choice may have some validity in isolation, it may be not be relevant to the argument being discussed or may not answer the specific question being asked.
So let's look at the answer choices below, noting the difference between ones that are somehow valid in isolation and the one that is relevant to the argument and fits the question being asked.
Before we do that, since we are being asked what is assumed, let's identify the conclusion that is based on the assumption we are asked to identify. The conclusion here is that if every country acted in accordance with the trade retaliation theory discussed in the argument, no country would trade with any other.
(A) No country actually acts according to the theory
of trade retaliation.
There is no reason to believe this from what is said and this is not an assumption that underlies the argument. So this answer choice neither is valid in isolation nor answers the question at hand.
(B) No country should block any of its markets to
foreign trade.
While this may have some validity in isolation and may be a reasonable conclusion to make given what is said in the argument, this is not an assumption upon which the argument is based.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international
tribunal.
If we were looking for something we could infer from the argument, this answer choice might be worth a look as it discusses what may be a reasonable way to avoid the loss of trade that could happen if countries used retaliatory practices. However, this question is not about inference. So this answer choice is not the right one.
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some
market closed to the other.
The conclusion of the argument is that if every country used retaliatory approaches, no countries would trade with each other. In order for that to be the case, at least one country in every pair of countries must have some reason for retaliation. If there were one or more pairs of countries that had all markets open to each other, then those countries would not have any reason to retaliate to any market closing done by countries that they are paired with. So even if retaliation were always used in in response to closed markets, the countries in those pairs would trade.
So this answer choice is an assumption required for the argument to work. In order for retaliation to cause all trade to cease, at least one of all pairs of countries must have some market closed to the other.
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to
protect domestic producers.
While this may be valid in isolation, it is not an assumption upon which the argument is based.
So the correct answer is
D.
