Critical Reasoning

I guess this question has not been asked before (I checked Johny thread).

For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained. A total blockade of Patria’s ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo.
The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

Why is D? and not E for instance?

Hi,

As you have confusion between D and E, I will give my reasoning for D and E only.

See,
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed
1. a high degree of both international accord and
2. ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained.

(2) is already stated in the statement, but for embargo to be successful the international accord should be there in favour of it.

Choice E mentions only International Unanimity
(which may be in favor or against the embargo), but for the embargo to be successful international unanimity should be in favour of embargo.So E fails.

Whereas choice D takes into account the other statement also that there is a possibility of international discord over the embago. So, there are chances for embago to fail.
So, D should be correct.

I hope this explains your query.

E; Simply reiterating what's mentioned in the argument, hence can't be a logical conclusion

Hence D

Isn't D too extreme ...

Ian...your thoughts on this ???

My Answer would be D.

isisalaska wrote:I guess this question has not been asked before (I checked Johny thread).

For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained. A total blockade of Patria’s ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo.
The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

Why is D? and not E for instance?

E is not the conclusion, because E talks about "For a blockade of Partria's PORT.....to be successful....", where as the argument is for the Trade embargo on a country....

The OA should be D,
E does not satisfy the requirement for international opinion unanimuous
(discord)

I chose "B", and couldn't understand the reasoning in the OG. If the international opinion is unanimous against Patria, wouldn't a trade embargo actually succeed, given that all countries will prevent trade with Patria?

I know something is wrong with my reasoning, but dont know what

thanks.

(D)

Successful Embargo = Blockade + International Accord

(A) Contradicts the passage
(B) International accord doesn't mean that the blockade will be successful (don't confuse BLOCKADE with EMBARGO)
(C) A total blockade would ensure that no goods enter or leave, but there's no mention of a naval blockade
(D) is Correct. The trade embargo won't work if there's international discord.
(E) The passage says that the international accord is necessary for the EMBARGO to be successful, not the BLOCKADE.

P1 -> Trade embargo can succeed if high degree of intl. accord and blockade of goods are sustained
P2 -> Total blockade of Patria's ports is a "NECESARRY" condiion for an embargo
P3 -> Blockade of Patria's ports leads to high degree of discord

Conclusion -> Any Trade Embargo against Patria will require that the ports be blocked. This will cause an international discord and thus the embargo will fail. This is clearly stated in D.

It is safe to apply this rule to ANY embargo because blockade of port (and hence intl. discord) is a PRE-CONDITION for an embargo against Patria

Tempting choices are :-

C -> While this may be true that total blockade will ensure that no good enter/leave patria, no evidence is given in the argument to support this

E -> "International opinion must be unanimous" - the word unanimous may mean a discord (embargo fails) or accord (embargo succeeds). Moreover, nature of international opinion is a factor in deciding the success of a trade embargo and not merely the blockade of ports that is just a condition for trade embargo

I understand why D is the best answer, but doesn't C answers a logic Gap? I mean, we can infer from the premises given that it is a viable conclusion.

Ex: "A total blockade of Patria's ports is necessary to an embargo"

Since the passage is referring to blocking ports, and only a Navy can block ports, shouldn't C be a viable solution since we have enough premises to conclude it?

after reading the option A - my instinct was that equal no. of countries will be for and against the embargo and hence the discord - i chose A
I came across the 'balance of opinion' term for the first time