For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and ability to...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Inference

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained. A total blockade of Patria's ports is necessary to an embargo, but such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo.

The claims above, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?

The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.

As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.

A naval blockade of Patria's ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.

Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.

For a blockade of Patria's ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

Solution

Passage Visualization

Passage Statement	Visualization and Linkage
For a trade embargo against a particular country to succeed, a high degree of both international accord and ability to prevent goods from entering or leaving that country must be sustained.	Success Requirements: Two mandatory conditions for embargo success International accord (high degree) Ability to prevent goods flow (high degree) Key Pattern: BOTH conditions must be present simultaneously Example: If international support = 90% and prevention capability = 30%, embargo fails. If international support = 40% and prevention capability = 95%, embargo still fails.
A total blockade of Patria's ports is necessary to an embargo	Specific Requirement: Port blockade = mandatory component Total blockade needed to achieve "ability to prevent goods flow" Without port blockade: prevention capability drops to insufficient levels Concrete Link: Port blockade is the mechanism for achieving condition #2
but such an action would be likely to cause international discord over the embargo	Contradiction Created: Port blockade undermines first success condition Port blockade → International discord (reduces accord) Yet port blockade = necessary for prevention capability Paradox: The action needed for condition #2 destroys condition #1
Overall Implication	Structural Impossibility: The passage reveals that for Patria specifically, the two mandatory success conditions are mutually exclusive. The very action required to achieve adequate prevention capability (port blockade) will undermine the international accord requirement, making embargo success extremely unlikely or impossible.

Valid Inferences

Inference: An embargo against Patria is unlikely to succeed.

Supporting Logic: Since embargo success requires both high international accord AND effective goods prevention, and since achieving goods prevention requires a total port blockade that would likely cause international discord, the two necessary conditions become mutually exclusive. When the action required to fulfill one success condition directly undermines the other success condition, the embargo cannot meet both requirements simultaneously.

Clarification Note: The passage doesn't claim the embargo will definitely fail, but establishes a structural contradiction that makes success highly improbable. The inference is specific to Patria due to the port blockade requirement mentioned.

Answer Choices Explained

The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.

The passage tells us that a blockade would cause international discord over the embargo, but this doesn't mean international opinion would favor Patria itself. Discord over an embargo strategy is different from supporting the target country. The passage doesn't provide information about opinions regarding Patria specifically.

As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.

This contradicts the logic of the passage. Even with unanimous international opinion, the passage shows that implementing the necessary port blockade would create discord, undermining that very unanimity. The passage demonstrates that maintaining both required conditions simultaneously is problematic.

A naval blockade of Patria's ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.

The passage states that a total blockade is 'necessary' for an embargo, but necessary doesn't mean sufficient or that it would 'ensure' complete prevention. The passage doesn't claim a blockade would be 100% effective, only that it's required.

Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.

This correctly captures the structural problem revealed in the passage. Since embargo success requires both sustained international accord and effective goods prevention, but achieving prevention requires a port blockade that would undermine international accord, the two necessary conditions become mutually exclusive. This makes failure likely.

For a blockade of Patria's ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

The passage requires 'a high degree' of international accord, not necessarily unanimity. Additionally, this choice focuses on blockade success rather than embargo success, and doesn't address the central contradiction the passage establishes.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...