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

Redeem

Seven countries Treaty

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:10 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:2 members

Seven countries Treaty

by satishchandra » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:47 pm
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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:09 pm
(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]
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:10 am
IMO D. If I'm correct, I will post my reasoning.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Tue Dec 06, 2011 8:18 am
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.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:27 am
What is the OA? Please urgent...
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:09 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by ruplun » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:36 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:03 am
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
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1