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

Redeem

Either Perry’s faction or Tucker’s faction

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

Either Perry’s faction or Tucker’s faction

by aspirant2011 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:02 am
Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily. Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements
must be true?

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily.

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government.

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both.

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government.

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government.

[spoiler]OA: Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:54 pm
aspirant2011 wrote:Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily. Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements
must be true?

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily. (this is probable, but not certain as argument does not give any information about both)

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government. (given If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically...not the other way round)

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both. (argument does not say that one of these events will definitely happen)

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government. (Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily ==> if suffering militarily, then it might be possible that trucker's faction won....but its not certain)

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government. (no such information given in pssg)

IMO D

[spoiler]OA: Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:44 pm
Its quite clear D

Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily.

F1: Three possible win - Perry / Tucker / None
CE1: If P wins --> Economically OR If Not Economically --> P lost
CE2: If T wins --> Militarily OR If Not Militarily --> T lost

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily.
Yes, It is possible, when none of P and T wins. (Contender.)

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government.
No, We can not be CERTAIN. We can only be certain in reverse form.

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both.
No, we dont know the situation if none of P and T wins.

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government.
Yes, This is possible. See the words here - "it is possible, but not certain". ( CONTENDER)

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government.
No, We dont know the militarily condition if P wins.


Out of A and D - A talks about things which are not given in the Stimulus, So We dont know much.
D is something for which we can are very sure of.

Hence,[spoiler] D[/spoiler] is the answer.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:30 pm
Thanked: 14 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:730

by coderversion1 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:54 pm
The best thing about the correct answer choice in GMAT is it must 100% correct. We can see that in this question very clearly.
F1: Either PF or TF will win, NOT BOTH.
F2: If PF wins, nation suffers economically.
F3: If TF wins, nation suffers militarily.

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily. Suffering economically is possible if PF wins, and militarily is possible if TF wins. As either of the two will defnitely gain control of government so avoiding bith sufferings is not possible. Reject.
(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government. Although PF causes economical suffering, PF cannot be the only cause of economic suffering. We cant be sure in the reverse order.
(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both. First part being correct, later part is definitely not certain by the premises. Its a contradiction if the first part. Two things being true at the same time.
(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government. Correct. It is possible as TF causes military suffering, but it might not be the only cause of a military suffering. Hence this choice is 100% correct in all cases.
(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government. Extra information which is not conveyed anywhere in the premises.

Hence IMO - D

Also,
https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-probs-100 ... tml#394553 this question has been asked before. Check out the link for more explanations.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Aug 13, 2011 12:52 am
i received a pm.

the answer to this problem is (d), but this problem is basically useless for the GMAT -- it tests formal logic, which is not in the canon of concepts tested on GMAT critical reasoning.
i.e., the GMAT will *not* contain problems with all of this "if A then B, if not-C then not-D, some X's are Y's, etc" type of reasoning.

in fact, solving practice problems like this will actually work against you, by training your brain to think in terms of formal logic -- if you freeze your brain into this way of thinking, you'll get slaughtered on the GMAT, because very close to 0% of GMAT CR problems have anything whatsoever to do with formal logic.

this type of question appears very, very frequently on the lsat, so that's probably where it comes from. stay away.
aspirant2011 wrote:Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily. Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements
must be true?

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily.

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government.

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both.

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government.

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government.

[spoiler]OA: Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
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
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:35 am
lunarpower wrote:i received a pm.

the answer to this problem is (d), but this problem is basically useless for the GMAT -- it tests formal logic, which is not in the canon of concepts tested on GMAT critical reasoning.
i.e., the GMAT will *not* contain problems with all of this "if A then B, if not-C then not-D, some X's are Y's, etc" type of reasoning.

in fact, solving practice problems like this will actually work against you, by training your brain to think in terms of formal logic -- if you freeze your brain into this way of thinking, you'll get slaughtered on the GMAT, because very close to 0% of GMAT CR problems have anything whatsoever to do with formal logic.

this type of question appears very, very frequently on the lsat, so that's probably where it comes from. stay away.
aspirant2011 wrote:Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily. Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements
must be true?

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily.

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government.

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both.

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government.

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government.

[spoiler]OA: Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
Thanks a lot Ron for your valuable feedback, as after seeing the answer of this problem I was really taken back :-( but your post has brought in me a confidence..............
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:18 pm
Hi Ron,

What your thoughts on this question-

If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.

Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?
If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.

If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an all-expenses-paid vacation. Joe earned an all-expense-paid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year.

A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads.

If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship.

All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.

The only point I want to say - "I agree that GMAT doesn't directly test "core argument logic", but it does test "logic wrapped in a shell", like in the question I put above.

So if we solve questions referring to core logic, wouldn't it be helpful for GMAT?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:23 am
sunnyjohn, your chance of getting this kind of problem is also very low (as in "essentially zero"). in fact, i'm not even quite sure whether this question type has ever actually appeared in gmat materials.
again, this is a type of question that is EXTREMELY common on the lsat (and with very good reason -- the law depends fundamentally on precedents, and precedents in turn depend fundamentally on arguments that mimic other arguments). on the other hand, as i've stated before, many lsat question types have negligible relevance to the gmat; this is one of them.

buuuutttt...

basically, the best way to do this is to write some form of generic "formula" for the way the original argument proceeds, and then just see which of the answer choices actually conforms to that formula.
sunnyjohn wrote:If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.
generally -- "If A happens, then B will happen. Therefore, if B doesn't happen, then A must not have happened."
Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?
If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.
assuming that "one" means "exactly one", this one fits the above formula.

The only point I want to say - "I agree that GMAT doesn't directly test "core argument logic", but it does test "logic wrapped in a shell", like in the question I put above.

So if we solve questions referring to core logic, wouldn't it be helpful for GMAT?
i don't really know what this means, but, no -- this is still basically a question of formal logic. if you train your brain to think in terms of formal logic, you will get worse at the gmat -- because gmat arguments, in almost all cases, DO NOT use formal logic.
this is most conspicuously true in the case of strengthening/weakening problems, which require the reader to make all kinds of common-sense assumptions and most-likely interpretations, but it's also true for many other question types. (this is also why a thousand zillion hours of memorization-based practice will not make anybody even a little bit better at those types of problems.)
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
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:2 members

by garima99 » Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:26 am
aspirant2011 wrote:Either Perry's faction or Tucker's faction, but not both, will win control of the government. If Perry's faction wins, the nation will suffer economically. If Tucker's faction wins, the nation will suffer militarily. Given the statements in the passage, which one of the following statements
must be true?

(A) It is possible, but not certain, that the nation will neither suffer economically nor suffer militarily.

(B) If the nation suffers economically, it is certain that Perry's faction has won control of the government.

(C) It is certain that the nation will suffer either economically or militarily, and also certain that it will not suffer both.

(D) If the nation suffers militarily, it is possible, but not certain, that Tucker's faction has won control of the government.

(E) If the nation suffers both economically and militarily, it is certain that neither Perry's faction nor Tucker's has won control of the government.

[spoiler]OA: Please discuss each answer choice in detail.[/spoiler]
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:48 am
lunarpower wrote:sunnyjohn, your chance of getting this kind of problem is also very low (as in "essentially zero"). in fact, i'm not even quite sure whether this question type has ever actually appeared in gmat materials.
again, this is a type of question that is EXTREMELY common on the lsat (and with very good reason -- the law depends fundamentally on precedents, and precedents in turn depend fundamentally on arguments that mimic other arguments). on the other hand, as i've stated before, many lsat question types have negligible relevance to the gmat; this is one of them.

buuuutttt...

basically, the best way to do this is to write some form of generic "formula" for the way the original argument proceeds, and then just see which of the answer choices actually conforms to that formula.
sunnyjohn wrote:If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.
generally -- "If A happens, then B will happen. Therefore, if B doesn't happen, then A must not have happened."
Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?
If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.
assuming that "one" means "exactly one", this one fits the above formula.

The only point I want to say - "I agree that GMAT doesn't directly test "core argument logic", but it does test "logic wrapped in a shell", like in the question I put above.

So if we solve questions referring to core logic, wouldn't it be helpful for GMAT?
i don't really know what this means, but, no -- this is still basically a question of formal logic. if you train your brain to think in terms of formal logic, you will get worse at the gmat -- because gmat arguments, in almost all cases, DO NOT use formal logic.
this is most conspicuously true in the case of strengthening/weakening problems, which require the reader to make all kinds of common-sense assumptions and most-likely interpretations, but it's also true for many other question types. (this is also why a thousand zillion hours of memorization-based practice will not make anybody even a little bit better at those types of problems.)

Thank you Ron for your valuable insights. As the good GMAT material is limited, and I have already taken GMAT once, so I do not have a lots of practice questions.
Can you recommend me some good source of practice questions?
Is there any thing in LSAT questions which can be helpful for GMAT?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:16 am
sunnyjohn wrote:Thank you Ron for your valuable insights.[/b] As the good GMAT material is limited, and I have already taken GMAT once, so I do not have a lots of practice questions.
Can you recommend me some good source of practice questions?
Is there any thing in LSAT questions which can be helpful for GMAT?
the intersection of the two tests' critical reasoning sections is very small, and, ironically, you won't be able to recognize that intersection in the first place unless you have already mastered GMAT CR. so, you should stay away.
i know it's tempting to use the lsat materials, because about a zillion trillion official lsat exams have been released, but using them to prepare for the gmat will do you more harm than good.

one very valuable exercise -- and one that will take a looooonnnggg time, if you actually do it for a substantial number of OG and gmat prep CR problems -- is to make your own analogies of the CR problems.

for instance, here's my analogy of problem #43 from OG12:
Dieting and exercising are the two ways in which Ron can lose body fat. If Ron goes on a diet, he will lose more body fat than if he exercises. Therefore, Ron can maximize his body fat-loss by going on a diet.
Find the assumption:
(A) Dieting is cheaper than exercising.
(B) Some diets will help Ron lose more body fat than other diets will.
(C) Ron is not very serious about losing body fat.
(D) If Ron works out *and* goes on a diet, he will not lose any more body fat than if he just goes on a diet.
(E) Apart from having to lose body fat, Ron doesn't have a whole lot of other problems in his life.

note that this analogy is probably much easier to understand, and to solve, than the original problem -- even though the logic is exactly the same.
moreover, it's probably much easier to understand why the wrong answers are wrong, too.

note an important element -- the passage and answer choices are logically similar to those in #43, but they are not phrased in the same way. in other words, i didn't just mindlessly take OG's syntax and replace a few nouns and verbs here and there; i actually wrote things in my own words, an approach that demands real understanding.

--

as i said, this exercise is not going to be something you can do overnight; if you find a problem difficult, it may well take you a long time to come up with a viable analogy. however, if you can come up with one -- in your own words, not in the same syntax as what is in OG -- then that represents true understanding.
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
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:24 pm
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:6 members

by navami » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:21 am
D it is
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:13 am
Yup I am also with option D...........

(A) Dieting is cheaper than exercising. ----- out of scope
(B) Some diets will help Ron lose more body fat than other diets will. ----- argument doesn't differentiate between different diets
(C) Ron is not very serious about losing body fat. ----- out of scope
(D) If Ron works out *and* goes on a diet, he will not lose any more body fat than if he just goes on a diet.
(E) Apart from having to lose body fat, Ron doesn't have a whole lot of other problems in his life. ----- out of scope
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

by sunnyjohn » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:14 am
lunarpower wrote:
sunnyjohn wrote:Thank you Ron for your valuable insights.[/b] As the good GMAT material is limited, and I have already taken GMAT once, so I do not have a lots of practice questions.
Can you recommend me some good source of practice questions?
Is there any thing in LSAT questions which can be helpful for GMAT?
the intersection of the two tests' critical reasoning sections is very small, and, ironically, you won't be able to recognize that intersection in the first place unless you have already mastered GMAT CR. so, you should stay away.
i know it's tempting to use the lsat materials, because about a zillion trillion official lsat exams have been released, but using them to prepare for the gmat will do you more harm than good.

one very valuable exercise -- and one that will take a looooonnnggg time, if you actually do it for a substantial number of OG and gmat prep CR problems -- is to make your own analogies of the CR problems.

for instance, here's my analogy of problem #43 from OG12:
Dieting and exercising are the two ways in which Ron can lose body fat. If Ron goes on a diet, he will lose more body fat than if he exercises. Therefore, Ron can maximize his body fat-loss by going on a diet.
Find the assumption:
(A) Dieting is cheaper than exercising.
(B) Some diets will help Ron lose more body fat than other diets will.
(C) Ron is not very serious about losing body fat.
(D) If Ron works out *and* goes on a diet, he will not lose any more body fat than if he just goes on a diet.
(E) Apart from having to lose body fat, Ron doesn't have a whole lot of other problems in his life.

note that this analogy is probably much easier to understand, and to solve, than the original problem -- even though the logic is exactly the same.
moreover, it's probably much easier to understand why the wrong answers are wrong, too.

note an important element -- the passage and answer choices are logically similar to those in #43, but they are not phrased in the same way. in other words, i didn't just mindlessly take OG's syntax and replace a few nouns and verbs here and there; i actually wrote things in my own words, an approach that demands real understanding.

--

as i said, this exercise is not going to be something you can do overnight; if you find a problem difficult, it may well take you a long time to come up with a viable analogy. however, if you can come up with one -- in your own words, not in the same syntax as what is in OG -- then that represents true understanding.
One of the best advices I have ever got for GMAT. Thanks a ton..
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:01 pm
aspirant2011 wrote:Yup I am also with option D...........
right -- but make sure that you note the relationship between this paragraph & answer choices (which i made myself, as an analogy) and the original. i.e., all of your statements about the answer choices apply similarly to the OG12 #43 answer choices, upon which they are modeled.

also, don't forget that the point of this exercise is NOT to *answer* the problem that i have posted! the point of the exercise is to make your own version of the problem, with your own passage and answer choices.
you can't claim a full understanding of the CR problems until you can write your own problems that work in the same way.

--

the same is true for SC concepts with which you struggle, too -- you should be able to write your own sentences that use each SC concept that you learn.
(DO NOT try to do this by altering the answer choices to an existing question -- that just causes nothing but trouble, mostly for unanticipated reasons. instead, when you learn a new grammar thing / idiom / construction / whatever else, you should try writing a few sentences of your own, from scratch, that use it. if you can't, then that means you don't fully understand it.)
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
Top
Post new topic Post Reply