[deleted because problem is from a banned source - see below]

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.

totally agree w/ the explanations by @karan13 and @george.kourdin. just wanted to add my perspective and an opinion about OG's explanation for option E.

basically, the stimulus states a general rule and then cites a specific case where the rule seems to fail. the rule is that:

for Z (a trade embargo/ban) to succeed, both
-X (international accord)
AND
-Y (complete blockade of goods)
must happen.

now, option B states only one condition i.e. X. hence, it, alone, is not sufficient for a successful trade embargo.

option E, in my opinion, is an absurd and a terminal circular reasoning. it states that for Y to happen, X must happen. BUT, the stimulus states, in the case of Patria, that Y will prevent X from happening, thereby preventing Z from happening. so, as per option E, X (international accord) leads to Y (blockade of goods), BUT Y prevents X, hence Z doesn't happen. the problem i have w/ OG's explanation of option E is that it considers "high degree of international accord" and "unanimity" separate; i believe the two are the same thing.

HTH

_________________
Ashish
Share not just why the right answer is right, but also why the wrong ones are not.

OG is a banned source; it is illegal to post OG questions anywhere on the web. If you are in one of our classes, please ask OG questions during office hours or before/after class..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor