(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty. [color=red]- No mention of this fact. [/color]
(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. [color=red]- No differentiation among countries is stated[/color]
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance. [color=red]- This can't be the case as the treaty is binding all of them on simultaneous action.[/color]
(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. [color=red]- No, simultaneous action is required[/color]
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be compete. [color=green]- Yes, the date on which the completion will take place is ambiguous[/color]

IMO D. If I'm correct, I will post my reasoning.

satishchandra wrote: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 compete.

No country is required to take action unless all of the countries take action:
Country A is not required to take action unless country B takes action.
Country B is not required to take action unless country A takes action.
And so on.
Thus, on the fixed date, it is possible that each country spends the day waiting for the other countries to take action.
The result is that NONE of the countries takes action.
And on the following day, each country has a legitimate excuse: it was not required to take action, since none of the other countries took action.

The correct answer is C: Each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance.

What is the OA? Please urgent...

GMATGuruNY wrote:

satishchandra wrote: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 compete.

No country is required to take action unless all of the countries take action:
Country A is not required to take action unless country B takes action.
Country B is not required to take action unless country A takes action.
And so on.
Thus, on the fixed date, it is possible that each country spends the day waiting for the other countries to take action.
The result is that NONE of the countries takes action.
And on the following day, each country has a legitimate excuse: it was not required to take action, since none of the other countries took action.

The correct answer is C: Each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance.

well its simultaneous action ....i dont seem to understand the logic of the answer explanation...please a elaborate explain is required.

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

The option must take into account the possibility of a event which all the countries would face!!

(A) the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty. Irrelavant
(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. - Extreme
(C) each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance. - Good option
(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. - Already in the passage
(E) there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be compete. Possibility of Ambiguity ??!! Not better than C

IMO: C