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

It is currently 31 Oct 2014, 14:13

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

The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 319
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 1

GMAT ToolKit User
The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple [#permalink] New post 01 Jul 2009, 00:41
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (02:15) correct 60% (00:39) wrong based on 11 sessions
1. The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?
(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks.
(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation.
(C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.
(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.
(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

The OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
d


Please Explain
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 106

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 02:20
For me C and D close.

Only reason D is better is that the para is in point of view of the nation that is going to retaliate/to be attacked.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html


Last edited by sudeep on 02 Jul 2009, 12:38, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 6

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 10:00
A) The word ‘only’ is too strong. Retaliation is one of the reasons a country may choose not to attack, but it is not the only reason.
B) Opposite of the argument. If a nation’s own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation, it may attack.
C) Not necessarily. It may not be able to withstand retaliation, but it isn’t a necessary conclusion here.
D) Yes. This makes sense with the argument. This naturally follows from the argument. If a nation wants to deter and it has unsurpassed military power, it will deter other nations from attacking.
E) No. There may be other ways of deterring other nations. Maintaining retaliatory force helps, but there could be other ways of deterring other nations from attacking that the argument doesn’t address.

Correct answer is D.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 172
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 17 [1] , given: 3

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 10:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
vaivish1723 wrote:
1. The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?
(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks.
(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation.
(C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.
(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.
(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.


The info defines successful deterrence: when a potential aggressor knows/thinks that it cannot defend itself against retaliatory measures (in other words, can't prevent retaliation), it will hesitate to attack - deterrence is then a success. The impact/damage of retaliation is not specified. For the potential aggressor, it could literally mean breaking a chair or total annihilation (of course... only in the GMAT CR context, not in a real IR context).

(A) Too extreme; the aggressor doesn't have to be "destroyed", just damaged in some unpreventable way.
(B) No, according to the original info, the aggressor's decision to attack relies on its judgment about the target's ability to retaliate; it does not rely on the aggressor's assessment of its own retaliatory force (again, only in the GMAT context).
(C) Again a little strong for me; "could not withstand" is going out on a limb. Maybe a big nation can withstand having one of its many cities nuked, but it would be undesirable (i.e. the US certainly could withstand a N. Korean nuke attack, but it would not be preferable). Also, I think this distorts the meaning of deterrence a little bit. The key variable given here seems to be whether the aggressor can "defend against", or in other words, "prevent or minimize the impact of" retaliation, NOT whether that aggressor can withstand the impact of the retaliatory attack once it is successfully carried out.
(E) This again distorts the meaning of deterrence. An aggressor is deterred when it knows it cannot prevent the target's successful retaliatory measures, the original info does not mention how great/powerful these retaliatory measures must be, nor does it require a comparison of various sides' retaliatory force (example: China's nuke deterrence is much smaller than that of the former USSR & the US, but it still successfully deters other nuke powers).

By POE, I think (D) is the best answer. (D) is narrowly qualified and consistent with the scope of the original info.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 106

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 12:42
"could not defend" is already mentioned. How is it different from 'could not withstand' and is extreme.
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 72 [1] , given: 6

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 13:37
1
This post received
KUDOS
Sudeep,

I’ll take a crack at explaining why C is wrong. The argument says that fear of retaliation would cause a nation to hesitate before attacking a target. In order for targets to deter attacks, they need to be believed to have retaliatory power. Agreed?

Now, answer C says that if an attacker does not attack a target, then that means the attacker thinks it can’t withstand a retaliatory attack. Agreed?

Well consider this case: Attacker is actually very friendly with the target. They have strong and interlinked economies. Attacker is not really an attacker at all. They are friends, so the “attacker” chooses not to attack. The ability to withstand a retaliatory attack has nothing to do with the reason why "attacker" is not attacking.

The argument says that A causes B. But answer C is saying B causes A. Not true. Just because A causes B, B does not necessarily cause A. Get it?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 852
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 190 [0], given: 106

Re: The theory of military deterrence [#permalink] New post 02 Jul 2009, 23:49
topher wrote:
Sudeep,

I’ll take a crack at explaining why C is wrong. The argument says that fear of retaliation would cause a nation to hesitate before attacking a target. In order for targets to deter attacks, they need to be believed to have retaliatory power. Agreed?

Now, answer C says that if an attacker does not attack a target, then that means the attacker thinks it can’t withstand a retaliatory attack. Agreed?

Well consider this case: Attacker is actually very friendly with the target. They have strong and interlinked economies. Attacker is not really an attacker at all. They are friends, so the “attacker” chooses not to attack. The ability to withstand a retaliatory attack has nothing to do with the reason why "attacker" is not attacking.

The argument says that A causes B. But answer C is saying B causes A. Not true. Just because A causes B, B does not necessarily cause A. Get it?


Thanks! I missed it
_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ... :beer
My debrief : journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V31
GPA: 3
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 27

Re: The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple [#permalink] New post 13 Feb 2012, 07:43
vaivish1723 wrote:
1. The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.
If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?
(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks.
(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation.
(C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.
(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.
(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

The OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
d


Please Explain


I agree with D.

Reason: The part highlighted in Blue, which is the conclusion as far as I can see, clearly talks about the making it known to adversaries that a nation's military capabilities are enormous. And the D hits this point bang on. The others don't come anywhere near.
_________________

petrifiedbutstanding

Re: The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple   [#permalink] 13 Feb 2012, 07:43
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A mutually exclusive theory is either true or false based on AlbertCA 0 08 Aug 2013, 09:18
6 The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple nelz007 9 03 Dec 2012, 07:20
2 The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple elegan 2 29 Oct 2012, 23:06
1 in theory blog 3 23 Jan 2008, 20:34
The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple Fistail 4 07 Sep 2007, 23:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple

  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®.