clearly C is the answer.
Argument says nations are either lender ( sets the term) or borrower.

If conclusion is to be provced, we HAVE to assume that any nation which does not sets term of dealing HAS NOT to be a world leader. Remember we have to bridge the gaps b/n argument premise and conclusion. option C does exactly that.

(C) seems to be right

IMO: B

pls post the OA

(C) it is.

can somebody pls post the explanaion here...

I woul dgo with C juts that your choices need some editing
(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that
nation cannot be a world leader.

replace action by nation

I also think answer choice C needs to be edited. It seems correct but is not 100% clear,the word action makes much confusion.

I arrived at C through elimination

A - Far-fetched
B - Too certain
D - Wrong direction
E - Far-fetched

Hence C. But I don't fully get the meaning of the sentence. Can someone explain the meaning of opt.C !

I usually eliminate answer choice which i find difficult understand.. this time held patience went through all the choices rereading the question and got C

But took 3 mins

(C) is answer here.
(B) cannot be. It has nuances of conditional logic.
We don't that (B) is true or not.
A nation that owes money cannot be a world leader. This doesn't imply that a leading nation is the only one which lends money. Any nation can do so, since there is no restriction on lending money to other nations.


Thanks
Prashant

Answer: C

I'd say C too, other choices aren't even close.

rkanthilal wrote:IMO C

P1: Economic considerations color every aspect of international dealings.
P2: Nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower
C1: A nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.

(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be a world leader. Correct. This answer states the assumption behind the conclusion. This answer states that a nation that is beholden to the terms of another nation cannot be a world leader.

Straightforward explanation. Thank you.

As per the Powerscore CR, this is a Supporter type of assumption in that it lends support to and fills a gap between the premise that the lender sets the terms and the conclusion that who follows the term can't be a world leader , implying that who sets or rules the terms can be a world leader. The option C is doing exactly that. Ya but I agree the options are confusing enough.

Economic considerations colour every aspect of international dealings, and nations are just like individuals in that the lender sets the terms of its dealings with the borrower. That is why a nation that owes money to another nation cannot be world leader.

The reasoning in the passage assumes which one of the following?

(A) A nation that does not lend to any other nation cannot be a world leader.
(B) A nation that can set the terms of its dealings with other nations is certain to be a world leader.
(C) A nation that has the terms of its dealings with another action set by that nation cannot be a world leader.
(D) A nation that is a world leader can borrow from another nation as long as that other nation does not set the terms of the dealings between the two nations.
(E) A nation that has no dealings with any other nation cannot be world leader.
B or C? and why?