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

 It is currently 12 Mar 2014, 01:37

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is

Author Message
TAGS:
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1427
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 107

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 62

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is [#permalink]  09 Dec 2012, 22:02
Expert's post
00:00

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

_________________

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

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

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink]  09 Dec 2012, 22:50
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!

Last edited by sjai8 on 10 Dec 2012, 02:59, edited 1 time in total.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1427
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 107

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 62

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink]  09 Dec 2012, 23:02
Expert's post
sjai8 wrote:
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!

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.
_________________
Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1122
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 48

Kudos [?]: 499 [0], given: 92

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink]  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

_________________

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
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 608
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.7
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 211

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink]  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
Now I am a sky diver too
_____________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Re: Nuclear deterrence [#permalink]  10 Dec 2012, 03:02
Marcab wrote:
sjai8 wrote:
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!

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 Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is 11 07 Mar 2006, 18:04
HELP: GMAT Prep thus far 3 12 Jul 2011, 18:40
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is 3 06 Feb 2012, 03:06
5 The benefits of the new policies are far reaching, economic 1 07 Jun 2013, 21:13
1 Although limited in their usefulness thus far, the company b 4 25 Sep 2013, 19:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by