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

 It is currently 14 Mar 2014, 09:59

### 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

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 482
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is [#permalink]  07 Mar 2006, 18:04
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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 countryâ€™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 latter
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1134
Location: India
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1

[#permalink]  07 Mar 2006, 19:46
Has to be between B and E.
Will go for E 'coz it states fact about nuclear deterrence which is itself theme of the problem.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 259
Location: New York City, USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  07 Mar 2006, 20:12
A) Never identifies the flaw with the Third World War arguement
B) It still does not undermine the deterrence power of Nuclear Weapons
C) Talks about nuclear accident, never mentions Third World War
D) It at all, it strenghtens that the major powers have refrained from War
E) Offers another explanation for not going to War. Weakens the argument of nuclear deterrence.

My Choice E.

- Vipin
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 587
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  07 Mar 2006, 21:40
agree, E.
Intern
Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 19
Followers: 0

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

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 03:36
I would go with B.
Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 04:16
B) From what happened in the past(....)

The point is that nothing happened in the past, therefore I go for E.
Director
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 634
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 10:25
^ E ^

A) doesnt show a flaw. it supports the idea of nuclear deterrance
(B) seems possible but the idea is too general and the phrase "an accidence can still trigger a 3rd world war" is not challenging enough to prove a flaw
(C) nuclear accident --> out of the sbj
(D) strenghtens the argument. doesnt show a flaw
(E) presents the idea that the reason for peace can be sth other than the nuclear deterrance. this is the best choice.
Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Location: MS
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 12:14
E,

suggest that there could be other factors, which are stoping the third world war instead of "Nuclear deterrence"
Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 100
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 15:17
E

B refers to accidents which has nothing to do with the passage.
Director
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 730
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  08 Mar 2006, 23:21
between B and E I ll go with E
_________________

IE IMBA 2010

Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 92
Location: Minneapolis
Followers: 1

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

[#permalink]  09 Mar 2006, 22:55
Between B and E, I will choose E
B talks about using past to predict future, which has not happened in the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 482
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

[#permalink]  11 Mar 2006, 11:43
OA is E
[#permalink] 11 Mar 2006, 11:43
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
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
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is 5 09 Dec 2012, 22:02
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

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

 Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.