Q: Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions

[jadugar]

Seven countries signed a treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date, with the actions of each conditional on simultaneous action taken by the other countries. Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action.
The simultaneous-action provision of the treaty leaves open the possibility that
A. the compliance date was subject to postponement, according to the terms of the treaty
B. one of the countries might not be required to make any changes or take any steps in order to comply with the treaty, whereas all the other countries are so required
C. each country might have a well-founded excuse, based on the provision, for its own lack of compliance
D. the treaty specified that the signal for one of the countries to initiate action was notification by the other countries that they had completed action
E. there was ambiguity with respect to the date after which all actions contemplated in the treaty are to be complete

[diya123]

It is either C or E. i think i will go with E. OA please..

[jadugar]

Can you please explain how you arrived at this answer.

[diya123]

According to the treaty,each country has to perform an action on "a" certain fixed date.. but.. another condition is that their action will be trigerred by the completion of another country's action... Now i think this condition lays the path to further excuses.. Also i think since it says before "a" certain fixed date, there is only 1 final date which has been decided upon and not individual dates before which each stage has to be completed.... so this leads me to reason that there may be some possibility of "date" being a problem.. hence i choose E. However, based on this same reasoning C also sounds good... Hence it could be E or C.
BUt as date is not mentioned in C i go with E. what is the OA?

[AimingReallyHigh]

I pick C, it is a possible outcome due to the simultaneous-action provision of the treaty.
A and E can be eliminated because the treaty states that the actions are to be performed on a certain fixed date and simultaneously carried out by each country.
D is out because the treaty clearly states that all actions are to be performed simultaneously.
B makes no sense because each country agreed to perform certain actions thus they signed the treaty.

[jadugar]

Originally Posted by diya123

According to the treaty,each country has to perform an action on "a" certain fixed date.. but.. another condition is that their action will be trigerred by the completion of another country's action

I don't think passage states that the relationship is end to start (end of previous action triggers next action), rather it is start to start (first action must start before second action can start).

To me passage looks the start of each countries action is dependent upon the start of other countries actions. When they finish doesn't make much difference.

Start date of actions is fixed but not the sequence of events.

Statement "Each country was also to notify the six other countries when it had completed its action." also states that other countries should notify of the completion but it doesn't impose the end date restriction; statement do pose start date restriction as given "treaty binding each of them to perform specified actions on a certain fixed date"

Based on this information, countries have to start on a fixed date, go in a random sequence (where the possibility of mess is) and finish when their task is finished (it doesn't matter what the end date is and end date is not fixed). So option C, E survive.

And infact C will lead to any thing in end date which is E. So C is the cause for E. So what do you say about C?

[diya123]

jadugar,

yes that could be true too.. this is a little tricky.. what is the OA?? waiting to hear more opinions on this one..

[jadugar]

Thank you for your help. OA is C.

[powerthelogic]

I worked on this Q before . C is the one to choose