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?
(A) The balance of opinion is likely to favor Patria in the event of a blockade.
(B) As long as international opinion is unanimously against Patria, a trade embargo is likely to succeed.
(C) A naval blockade of Patria’s ports would ensure that no goods enter or leave Patria.
(D) Any trade embargo against Patria would be likely to fail at some time.
(E) For a blockade of Patria’s ports to be successful, international opinion must be unanimous.

for the above question, I have some confusion between the option B and option E.
After skinning over the explanation of option E in OG, I completely agreed with the point mentioned. but I still can't figure out why not B. I consent successful embargo need to be guaranteed by both two terms, but according to the statement of option B which said the embargo was likely to , not said "must", so it indeed would have the opportunity to succeed cause the other condition would likely to meet meanwhile although not mentioned in the option, but anyway, as the circumstance appears mentioned in option B, we should not exclude the likelihood that embargo will be succeed, right?

Another question need to be confirmed, in option E, does the "a blockade of Patria’s ports " equal to "embargo against Patria", I think no, cause "embargo against Patria" need "a total blockade", not just one, so I consider it should be one aspect to deny the option. does my logic be consistent with GMAC's?

Why no any instructions, Please help me resolve the difficulties, many thanks!

i also need help to figure out such questions? Does anybody help us ?
why "a high degree of international accord" is not equal to unianimity?
Thank you!

hi let try this....

let me say it the simplest way possible... firstly emargo means a ban... read the entire text and replace embargo with ban for better understanding....

pay attention to ur text and keep that in mind... now read B. it talks only about one thing international agreement..now read E it talks about ports and international agreemnt... so the one that includes more info about the passage is the winner.

hope it helps any doubts let me know...

Thank you!! I understand it !!:)

to play devil's advocate..B talks about the embargo as well as the international agreement. in that sense, they both relate to the conclusion so i wouldn't rely on that logic.

i think that D>B because B is saying that as long as there is agreement, embargo will succeed. that's not what the argument is saying. international agreement is not the only prerequisite for success.

d is saying that international agreement must exist for the blockade to be succesful. this is inline with the premise stated in the argument.