Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is [#permalink]
07 Mar 2006, 18:04
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.
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.
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.