Trade embargo

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: United States
Thanked: 4 times

Trade embargo

by chaya009 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:59 am
Politician B: Our aim should be to encourage the government of Qarnak to change its policies and become more open. An Trade embargo, as opposed to a full scale military intervention, is the best way to achieve this.Therefore, we should only buy products from other countries and do as much as possible to encourage other countries to boycott Qarnak.

Which of the following if true, would be the best evidence that the economy in politician country would not be materially harmed if Politician B's recommendation is followed?

a. Many of the major corporations in the Politician B's country buy products from Qarnak.
b. Some of the companies from the Politician B's country that have factories in Qarnak would be able to out-source their production to other countries for little cost within a short period of time.
c. Some companies that do business with qarnak have instituted fair treatment policies for their workers.
d. Based on the past statistics, the projected financial loss in Politician B's country incurred as a result of the boycott would be negligible.
e.If the government were to go to war against Qarnak, the stability of many of its companies would be undermined by the possible terrorist activity.

Source: Manhattan review
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:10 pm
A- This is the opposite answer. This would weaken the argument.

B- This is incorrect because we do not know how many companies do business in Quarnak. If there is only one small or medium sized business that has a factory in the country, then this answer choice would be irrelevant.

C- This is irrelevant and doesn't address the conclusion. This would have no affect on the argument.

D- Correct

E- this is irrelevant and doesn't address the argument
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: United States
Thanked: 4 times

by chaya009 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:14 pm
OA is C.

No explanation given in the book.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:16 pm
chaya009 wrote:OA is C.

No explanation given in the book.
Maybe someone else could weigh in because I don't see how that can be right. For one fair practice treatments are not something that can be reasonably expected for a test taker to have knowledge of before the test. What's the source?
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: United States
Thanked: 4 times

by chaya009 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:21 pm
How can u explain the prior knowledge of fair treatment to be right.
Its Manhattan review, i have already mentioned in the main post.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:02 am
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:760

by Osirus@VeritasPrep » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:24 pm
chaya009 wrote:How can u explain the prior knowledge of fair treatment to be right.
Its Manhattan review, i have already mentioned in the main post.
The average test taker is not going to know the economic consequences of companies instituting fair practice treatments. It is relatively complex, because you have some companies that do a poor job of this but are never boycotted, while others have been boycotted. Its a bad question in my opinion and if choice D is correct, that would best support that the country's economy would not be harmed. The fair practice treatments would not necessarily do this.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/the-retake-o ... 51414.html

Brandon Dorsey
GMAT Instructor
Veritas Prep

Buy any Veritas Prep book(s) and receive access to 5 Practice Cats for free! Learn More.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:53 pm
I agree with Osirus.

D should be the answer. Let us quickly get in to its details.

A couple of scenario's:

If the politician's country X is going to Import some mterial from Country Q, and after implementing this boycott, Country X has to import it from other countries.So some Financial loss may occur provided the rates ar higher in other countries compared to that of Country Q.

Same holds true for Export scenario also...

But D states NO FINANCIAL LOSSES becox of boycott.This gives us the confidence that COuntry X can go ahead with boycott and do its transactions with other countries boycotting its relations with Q

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:07 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by mmon » Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:36 pm
IMO C. and is straight forward.

"some companies" - nowhere mentioned they are from politician's country so has the least relevance and thus less likely to impact politician's country.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:56 pm
I'd say C but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic.