Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 15 Apr 2014, 23:56

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1427
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 108

Kudos [?]: 489 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User Premium Member
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is [#permalink] New post 09 Dec 2012, 22:02
Expert's post
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

90% (02:01) correct 10% (00:00) wrong based on 10 sessions
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?
(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy.
(B) From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers.
(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident.
(D) The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation.
(E) It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at peace.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
E

_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com


Last edited by Marcab on 10 Dec 2012, 01:16, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink] New post 09 Dec 2012, 22:50
My answer is E.
Conclusion: Nuclear deterrence has worked. This is because there hasn't been WW3 yet.
A - out of scope
B - Talks about future event. Not necessarily the reason for a flaw
C - Again, its a prediction. If anything, this strengthens the argument because if produce more nuclear - higher likelihood of a nuclear accident
D - I was tempted here. BUT this is also (albeit very little) strengthening the argument because if the small scale hasn't lead to WW3 then this could be because of not using nuclear weapons.
E - Correct because there is some other possibility for not going in a war (i.e. economic value) and just not only nuclear deterrence

I think that to solve weaken or assumption question such as this - cause and effect theory works the best.

Simply, find an alternate cause for the stated effect and Eureka! :-D

Last edited by sjai8 on 10 Dec 2012, 02:59, edited 1 time in total.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1427
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 108

Kudos [?]: 489 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink] New post 09 Dec 2012, 23:02
Expert's post
sjai8 wrote:
My answer is E.
Conclusion: Nuclear deterrence has worked. This is because there hasn't been WW3 yet.
A - out of scope
B - Talks about future event. Not necessarily the reason for a flaw
C - Again, its a prediction. If anything, this strengthens the argument because if produce more nuclear - higher likelihood of a nuclear accident
D - I was tempted here. BUT this is also (albeit very little) strengthening the argument because if the small scale hasn't lead to WW3 then this could be because of not using nuclear weapons.
E - Correct because there is another reason for not going in a war (i.e. economic value) and just not only nuclear deterrence

I think that to solve weaken or assumption question such as this - cause and effect theory works the best.

Simply, find an alternate cause for the stated effect and Eureka! :-D


But where does the choice E states that "economic value" has been the reason for not to go in a war. It states that the reason cannot be known.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1208
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 52

Kudos [?]: 560 [0], given: 111

GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink] New post 09 Dec 2012, 23:44
Choice E does not say that the reason for peace WAS "recognition of the economic value". It only says the reason for peace COULD BE "recognition of the economic value" or maybe even some other factor. The fact that there "could be" an alternative reason effectively weakens the conclusion arrived at by the argument. So IMHO

Answer is E
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Director
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 691
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 229

Premium Member
Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2012, 01:01
Marcab wrote:
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.
Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?
(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy.
(B) From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers.
(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident.
(D) The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation.
(E) It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at peace.

OA
[Reveal] Spoiler:
soon


Hi ,

Plz post OA for the same , IMO also the answer is (E)
_________________

_____________________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
Race Starts again
VeritasPrep 700
GMATPrep#1 650
GMATPrep#2 710

_____________________________________________________________________________

Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2012, 03:02
Marcab wrote:
sjai8 wrote:
My answer is E.
Conclusion: Nuclear deterrence has worked. This is because there hasn't been WW3 yet.
A - out of scope
B - Talks about future event. Not necessarily the reason for a flaw
C - Again, its a prediction. If anything, this strengthens the argument because if produce more nuclear - higher likelihood of a nuclear accident
D - I was tempted here. BUT this is also (albeit very little) strengthening the argument because if the small scale hasn't lead to WW3 then this could be because of not using nuclear weapons.
E - Correct because there is another reason for not going in a war (i.e. economic value) and just not only nuclear deterrence

I think that to solve weaken or assumption question such as this - cause and effect theory works the best.

Simply, find an alternate cause for the stated effect and Eureka! :-D


But where does the choice E states that "economic value" has been the reason for not to go in a war. It states that the reason cannot be known.


Sorry Marcab, by the time I reached to E to explain my reasoning, I somehow forgot the exact words and wrote the answer that was in my head.

Answer choice E is correct because it gives a tiny bit of hope that there is a possibility of anything but nuclear deterrence for no WW3. Thanks for correcting me.
Re: Nuclear deterrence   [#permalink] 10 Dec 2012, 03:02
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Popular new posts That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is gmat_crack 11 07 Mar 2006, 18:04
New posts HELP: GMAT Prep thus far aanchalsinha 3 12 Jul 2011, 18:40
New posts Experts publish their posts in the topic That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is nafishasan60 3 06 Feb 2012, 03:06
New posts 5 The benefits of the new policies are far reaching, economic emmak 1 07 Jun 2013, 21:13
New posts 1 Although limited in their usefulness thus far, the company b honchos 4 25 Sep 2013, 19:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.