BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

1000 CR Test 8 Q5

Expert replies
by its_me07 » Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:24 am
why cant E be the ans?OA is C

Large national budget deficits do not cause large trade deficits. If they did, countries with the largest budget deficits would also have the largest trade deficits. In fact, when deficit figures are adjusted so that different countries are reliably comparable to each other, there is no such correlation.
If the statements above are all true, which of the following can properly be inferred on the basis of them?
(A) Countries with large national budget deficits tend to restrict foreign trade.
(B) Reliable comparisons of the deficit figures of one country with those of another are impossible.
(C) Reducing a country’s national budget deficit will not necessarily result in a lowering of any trade deficit that country may have.
(D) When countries are ordered from largest to smallest in terms of population, the smallest countries generally have the smallest budget and trade deficits.
(E) Countries with the largest trade deficits never have similarly large national budget deficits.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by joshi.komal » Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:45 am
Hi its_me,

Inference questions can be answered on the basis of specific information given in the passage without making any assumptions. So look at each answer choice separately and start eliminating.

(A) Countries with large national budget deficits tend to restrict foreign trade.
'Tend to restrict foreign trade'. Foreign trade and restriction are not mentioned anywhere in the argument. This makes it out of scope and can be eliminated.

(B) Reliable comparisons of the deficit figures of one country with those of another are impossible.
'Impossible'- EXTREME language and can be elimated

(C) Reducing a country’s national budget deficit will not necessarily result in a lowering of any trade deficit that country may have.
Well this sounds like reasonable answer as all the information is specifically given (As the argument mentions that there is no correlation). We will not eliminate it.We will continue our hunt for a better answer choice.

(D) When countries are ordered from largest to smallest in terms of population, the smallest countries generally have the smallest budget and trade deficits.
Introducing 'population' which is again out of scope. Eliminate it.

(E) Countries with the largest trade deficits never have similarly large national budget deficits.
'Never' - EXTREME language eliminate.

Since we did not find any better choice than C so we choose C. which is the correct answer
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:18 am
the above post is nice and comprehensive.

do notice the 'weasel words' (not necessarily) used in the correct answer choice. words like that render almost any statement reasonable, because they admit so many exceptions; therefore, the likelihood of being able to infer such statements is relatively high.

on the other hand, choice e makes an extreme, definitive statement - NEVER - that is the direct opposite of using weasel words. statements like this one are difficult, if not impossible, to justify in most cases.

remember that you're always looking for an answer choice that is a mere restatement or rephrasing of information that's already in the passage.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by ikant » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:30 am
Well .. All has been stated nice and well about the usage of strong and extreme words on GMAT choices. It is correct that such choices are less probable of being correct.

However, there is another logical flaw in the option e.

The arguement says::

Large Budget deficits --> Large trade deficits.

This statement is an implication relationship. Or in simplistic terms a causal relationship.

Now, in such case of A --> B. The reverse is out of scope. Logically we can conclude nothing about B having a causal effect on A.

Hence, the case of large trade deficits causing large budget deficits stands incorrect.
"To do is to be"
Join the discussion

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:30 pm
C is the most suitable option in this case
Join the discussion