Loading...
Commentator: The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.
The commentator's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| The theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. |
|
| If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other. |
|
The commentator starts by explaining what trade retaliation theory suggests, then shows what would happen if everyone followed this approach universally
If every country followed trade retaliation theory, all international trade would stop
The argument takes a theory (trade retaliation) and shows its logical consequence when applied universally (no trade at all). This creates a reductio ad absurdum - showing the theory leads to an undesirable outcome when taken to its logical conclusion
Assumption - We need to find what the commentator must believe to be true for their conclusion to work. The commentator says if everyone follows trade retaliation theory, no trade would happen anywhere.
The key claim is absolute: 'NO country would trade with ANY other' - this is a complete shutdown of all international trade based on universal application of retaliation theory.
To find assumptions, we need to think about what could make this conclusion false while keeping the facts in the passage true. The commentator jumps from 'countries retaliate when blocked' to 'complete trade shutdown.' What gaps exist in this logic? We need to identify what must be true for retaliation cycles to spiral into total trade cessation rather than finding equilibrium or stopping.
'No country actually acts according to the theory of trade retaliation.' This contradicts the entire premise of the argument. The commentator is making a hypothetical claim about what would happen if every country acted according to this theory. If no country actually follows the theory, then the commentator's hypothetical scenario becomes irrelevant. This choice goes against the argument's structure rather than supporting it.
'No country should block any of its markets to foreign trade.' This is making a normative judgment about what countries should or shouldn't do. However, the commentator's argument is descriptive - it's analyzing what would logically happen if countries followed a particular theory. The argument doesn't rely on any moral judgments about whether market blocking is right or wrong, just on the logical consequences of following the retaliation theory.
'Trade disputes should be settled by international tribunal.' Similar to choice B, this introduces a normative element about how trade disputes ought to be resolved. The commentator's argument doesn't depend on any particular method of dispute resolution - it's simply tracing the logical consequences of countries following trade retaliation theory. This assumption isn't necessary for the argument to work.
'For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.' This is the correct answer. Here's why this assumption is critical: The trade retaliation theory only gets triggered when countries are 'closed out of any of another country's markets.' If some country pairs had completely open markets between them, the retaliation theory wouldn't apply to those pairs, and they could continue trading even if everyone else followed the theory. But the commentator concludes that no country would trade with any other - a complete shutdown. For this absolute conclusion to be valid, every country pair needs to have at least one market closure to start the retaliation cycle. Choice D provides exactly this necessary condition.
'Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.' This explains a possible motivation for why countries might close markets, but the commentator's argument doesn't depend on understanding the reasons behind market closures. The argument works regardless of whether countries close markets for protectionist reasons, security reasons, or any other motivation. The logic depends only on the existence of closures and the resulting retaliation cycle, not the underlying motivations.