Critical Reasoning

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
(B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
(D) the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete
C

Is it C???

IMO D.

IMO E, supported directly by the following sentence in the passage: Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.

Can someone verify the OA? And the OA's reasoning?

IMO B

The argument states that actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries
I thought this means when each country decides on which action to perform, it shd base its decision on whether other countries are doing any actions simultaneously. But for the FIRST country that performs any action, there is no criteria to follow (because no country has started performing any action). So, that country need to do anything (i.e, make any changes or take any steps to comply with the treaty), while all other countries need to comply with the treaty by basing their decision on whether other countries are performing an action.

So, the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that (B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required.


My reasoning may be wrong and I don't have an explanation as to why other choices may be wrong.

What is the source?
And what is OA and it's reasoning?

bravotalks wrote:IMO B

The argument states that actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries
I thought this means when each country decides on which action to perform, it shd base its decision on whether other countries are doing any actions simultaneously. But for the FIRST country that performs any action, there is no criteria to follow (because no country has started performing any action). So, that country need to do anything (i.e, make any changes or take any steps to comply with the treaty), while all other countries need to comply with the treaty by basing their decision on whether other countries are performing an action.

So, the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that (B) one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required.


My reasoning may be wrong and I don't have an explanation as to why other choices may be wrong.

What is the source?
And what is OA and it's reasoning?

For the given explanation, Option C suits better than option B. What makes you assume that the first country will initiate any action on its own. And if no country inititates an action then all the countries have an excuse fro their lack of compliance.

I vote for option B