Critical Reasoning

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?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by internation tribunal.
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some marked closed to the other.
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.


Looking for experts to go through the answer choices, properly negating each one, especially answer D.

I am not an expert!

But D sounds correct to me!

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation. -->vice versa is assumed in the argument!
(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.-->no & any are strong wordings for an assumption questions.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by internation tribunal. -->to far to assume this!
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some marked closed to the other. -->Negation: For 2 any countries as least one has not any market closed to the other.So argument fails. At least one does not close market to other, so no need to worry about no trading!
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.-->domestic is not mentioned.

fk27 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?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by internation tribunal.
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.


Looking for experts to go through the answer choices, properly negating each one, especially answer D.

Premise: If countries act according to the theory of trade retaliation...
Conclusion: Then no country is going to trade with any other country.

Assumption: That every country that subscribes to the theory will have reason to retaliate and to implement the theory.

Answer choice D negated: If we pick out any two countries, we'll find that neither has closed any of its markets to the other.
If no country closes its markets, then there will be no need for retaliation, invalidating the conclusion that there will be no trading. Thus, answer choice D is the necessary assumption: what must be true for the conclusion to be valid.

GMATGuruNY, I am having a little trouble following your negation. Isn't the logical opposite of "some" "none"? And for the use of "neither", does it follow from the logical opposite of >=1, which is <1, which in this case is 0 ?

fk27 wrote:GMATGuruNY, I am having a little trouble following your negation. Isn't the logical opposite of "some" "none"? And for the use of "neither", does it follow from the logical opposite of >=1, which is <1, which in this case is 0 ?

When we refer to two things, we use neither instead of none: neither of the two countries.
We don't say neither has closed none; we say neither has closed any. The combination neither + any implies "not any", which means "none".

Easier to see with an example.
Given countries A and B, the negation of answer choice D would say:
Country A has closed none of its markets to country B.
Country B has closed none of its markets to country A.

To combine the two statements, we say:
Neither country has closed any of its markets to the other.

GMATGuruNY, I am learning the Negation technique and have attempted to apply this to all choices (as follows) except in E (couldn't do). would appreciate if you can guide me whether i am in the right direction or not. Also, help me how to negate E. Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
Negation: All country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation: If all countries act according to the theory, then trade between any two countries is not possible or no country is going to trade with any other country, which is precisely the conclusion stated above. And hence negation doesn't cause the argument to fall apart.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade:
Negation: All country should block ALL of its markets to foreign trade: If ALL countries block ALL of its markets to foreign trade, then trade between any two countries is not possible or no country is going to trade with any other country, which is precisely the conclusion stated above. And hence negation doesn't cause the argument to fall apart.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
Negation: Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal: If Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal, and then it does not causes the argument to fall apart.
[/list]

rishijhawar wrote:GMATGuruNY, I am learning the Negation technique and have attempted to apply this to all choices (as follows) except in E (couldn't do). would appreciate if you can guide me whether i am in the right direction or not. Also, help me how to negate E. Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
Negation: All country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation: If all countries act according to the theory, then trade between any two countries is not possible or no country is going to trade with any other country, which is precisely the conclusion stated above. And hence negation doesn't cause the argument to fall apart.

(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade:
Negation: All country should block ALL of its markets to foreign trade: If ALL countries block ALL of its markets to foreign trade, then trade between any two countries is not possible or no country is going to trade with any other country, which is precisely the conclusion stated above. And hence negation doesn't cause the argument to fall apart.

(C) Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.
Negation: Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal: If Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal, and then it does not causes the argument to fall apart.
[/list]

Your negations of A and B are too far-reaching.

The negation of none is NOT none, which means SOME.
The negation of some is NOT some, which means NONE.
The negation of all is NOT all, which means NONE or SOME.

Here are the answer choices negated:

(A) SOME countries actually act according to the theory of trade retaliation. Doesn't invalidate the conclusion.
(B) SOME countries should block SOME of their markets to foreign trade. Doesn't invalidate the conclusion.
(C) Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal. Doesn't invalidate the conclusion.
(D) For any two countries, NEITHER has ANY markets closed to the other. (When referring to two elements, we use NEITHER instead of NONE.). Correct: the negation of D makes the argument fall apart. If no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.
(E) Countries DO NOT close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers. Doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

The correct answer is D.

Mitch, thanks again.
A couple of follow ups:
In D, if no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade (aren't we bringing outside knowledge for the underlined part), I mean does this follow from the question stem. Please help me understand.

Also, could you please also explain how each choice doesn't invalidate the conclusion? Sorry for being demanding, but for me this will go a long way to attack Assumption questions.

fk27 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?

(A) No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.
(B) No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.
(C) Trade disputes should be settled by internation tribunal.
(D) For any two countries, at least one has some marked closed to the other.
(E) Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.


Looking for experts to go through the answer choices, properly negating each one, especially answer D.

I love E because its soooo irrelevant. It leads me to recognize the other three wrong choices, because they make absolute political, economic, and legal statements of cause and effect or recommendation. They are wrong because they are extreme as well, using language such as "should be" and "no country", when we are looking for an underlying assumption. That's not to say extreme language is always wrong, just that it is in this case.

...Just my humble opinion.

Hi Mitch, appreciate if you could please help me here.

rishijhawar wrote:Mitch, thanks again.
A couple of follow ups:
In D, if no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade (aren't we bringing outside knowledge for the underlined part), I mean does this follow from the question stem. Please help me understand.

Also, could you please also explain how each choice doesn't invalidate the conclusion? Sorry for being demanding, but for me this will go a long way to attack Assumption questions.

rishijhawar wrote:Hi Mitch, appreciate if you could please help me here.

rishijhawar wrote:Mitch, thanks again.
A couple of follow ups:
In D, if no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade (aren't we bringing outside knowledge for the underlined part), I mean does this follow from the question stem. Please help me understand.

Also, could you please also explain how each choice doesn't invalidate the conclusion? Sorry for being demanding, but for me this will go a long way to attack Assumption questions.

Regarding the negation of answer choice D:
A normal state of affairs is that countries trade with each other. Thus, if no countries close their markets, common sense tells us that at least some countries will be trading with each other, invalidating the conclusion that there will be no trade.

The negations of A, B, C and E do not invalidate the conclusion of the argument for the following reasons:

(A) SOME countries actually act according to the theory of trade retaliation. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is only about what will happen if ALL countries act according to the theory of trade retaliation.

(B) SOME countries should block SOME of their markets to foreign trade. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(C) Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(E) Countries DO NOT close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is not about the protection of domestic producers.

The correct answer is D.

Thanks GMATGuruNY for explainging this Q in detail and how to use negation technique. I will practice it with other questions too.
Can you tell how to identify if a GMAT question needs to use negation technique? I just got so frustrated with the answer choices of this question that I decided to use negation technique.
Is negation to be used when nothing works ( last resort to answer the question)?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

rishijhawar wrote:Hi Mitch, appreciate if you could please help me here.

rishijhawar wrote:Mitch, thanks again.
A couple of follow ups:
In D, if no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade (aren't we bringing outside knowledge for the underlined part), I mean does this follow from the question stem. Please help me understand.

Also, could you please also explain how each choice doesn't invalidate the conclusion? Sorry for being demanding, but for me this will go a long way to attack Assumption questions.

Regarding the negation of answer choice D:
A normal state of affairs is that countries trade with each other. Thus, if no countries close their markets, common sense tells us that at least some countries will be trading with each other, invalidating the conclusion that there will be no trade.

The negations of A, B, C and E do not invalidate the conclusion of the argument for the following reasons:

(A) SOME countries actually act according to the theory of trade retaliation. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is only about what will happen if ALL countries act according to the theory of trade retaliation.

(B) SOME countries should block SOME of their markets to foreign trade. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(C) Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(E) Countries DO NOT close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is not about the protection of domestic producers.

The correct answer is D.

Here is a CR Questions from OG:
What should be the approach to solve this question? Is it meant to be solved using negation or some other technique because the answer doesnt stand out to me in first reading. What am I missing out?

20. In recent years, many cabinetmakers have been
winning acclaim as artists. But since furniture must be
useful, cabinetmakers must exercise their craft with an
eye to the practical utility of their product. For this
reason, cabinetmaking is not art.
Which of the following is an assumption that supports
drawing the conclusion above from the reason given
for that conclusion?
(A) Some furniture is made to be placed in
museums, where it will not be used by anyone.
(B) Some cabinetmakers are more concerned than
others with the practical utility of the products
they produce.
(C) Cabinetmakers should be more concerned with
the practical utility of their products than they
currently are.
(D) An object is not an art object if its maker pays
attention to the object's practical utility.
(E) Artists are not concerned with the monetary
value of their products.

Answer : D

GMATGuruNY wrote:

rishijhawar wrote:Hi Mitch, appreciate if you could please help me here.

rishijhawar wrote:Mitch, thanks again.
A couple of follow ups:
In D, if no countries close their markets, then countries will continue to trade (aren't we bringing outside knowledge for the underlined part), I mean does this follow from the question stem. Please help me understand.

Also, could you please also explain how each choice doesn't invalidate the conclusion? Sorry for being demanding, but for me this will go a long way to attack Assumption questions.

Regarding the negation of answer choice D:
A normal state of affairs is that countries trade with each other. Thus, if no countries close their markets, common sense tells us that at least some countries will be trading with each other, invalidating the conclusion that there will be no trade.

The negations of A, B, C and E do not invalidate the conclusion of the argument for the following reasons:

(A) SOME countries actually act according to the theory of trade retaliation. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is only about what will happen if ALL countries act according to the theory of trade retaliation.

(B) SOME countries should block SOME of their markets to foreign trade. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(C) Trade disputes should NOT be settled by international tribunal. This negation is outside the scope. The argument does not offer advice about what countries should or should not do.

(E) Countries DO NOT close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers. This negation is outside the scope. The argument is not about the protection of domestic producers.

The correct answer is D.

This is also an assumption question.. Is it a candidate for negation? What is the correct a[[roach to solve this question? Thanks
78. A recent report determined that although only 3
percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped
their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all
vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were
equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their
vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed
the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the
following assumptions?
(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar
detectors are less likely to be ticketed for
exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who
do not.
(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the
speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed
limit regularly than are drivers who are not
ticketed.
(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for
exceeding the speed limit was greater than the
number of vehicles that were equipped with
radar detectors.
(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for
exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more
than once in the time period covered by the
report.
(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the
speed limit more often than did drivers on other
state highways not covered in the report.

D ...