Critical Reasoning

Economic consideration colour every aspect of international dealings, and nations are like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.

The reason in the passage assumes which of the following?
1. A nation that does not lend to any other nation can not be a world leader.
2. A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nation is certain to be a world leader.
3. A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be world leader.
4. A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.
5 A nation that has no dealing with any other nation can not be a world leader.

Can you somebody explain this???


The answer is C

This is an assumption question which means we can not bring outside information or we should eliminate the choices that can not be drawn direcly from the argument. You should always stay within the context of the argument! and should NEVER bring outside information...

The argument says : If nation A gives money to nation B, the nation money is given to, can not be a world leader.

1. A nation that does not lend to any other nation can not be a world leader. -->the argument does not claim such a thing.A nation can be a world leader although it does not lend.

2. A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nation is certain to be a world leader. -->strong wordings almost always take place in wrong choices. We can never speak with certainty.

3. A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be world leader. CORRECT.If nation B ows money to nation A, nation B can not be a world leader. This is excatly what argument claims!

4. A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.-->There is not any info about this case in the argument. This is gray! and because we should not bring any outside info, we eliminate this choice !

5 A nation that has no dealing with any other nation can not be a world leader. This is strong wording and it is not correct to assume such a thing. A nation can be a world leader even it has no dealing with any other!

Hopw this helps!

Hi,

Nice Question. Good example of rephrasing the Casual reasoning in answer. This is how i proceed to solve it.

Lender set the terms of deal.
IF a nation owes money --> CAN NOT be WORLD LEADER.

One of the possible assumption was thinking before moving foward was - if a nation is world leader, he is very unlikely to own money from any other nation.

but Option C is actually restating the same "IF a nation owes money --> CAN NOT be WORLD LEADER." in other words.

Thanks,

Hey thanks for the explanation.