jigar16496 wrote:
explanation please
Hello,
jigar16496. As the first order of business, I would suggest
not practicing upper-level material until you are answering Medium-level questions (by official designation) with at least 75-80 percent accuracy. Otherwise, you will more likely create a number of rules that seem inconsistent across different CR questions, and you may be missing some of the nuances that make certain answers correct in one case and incorrect in another. That said, I will offer a full breakdown below, since I see that no other Expert has chimed in so far.
Sentence one reveals that the author believes
that truth is our nation's surest weapon in the propaganda war, and that this author finds certain American
"disinformation" campaigns distressing.
Sentence two explains the purpose of such campaigns:
to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own [interests]. Notice that I have added the implied
interests to the end there. We will circle back to this point later.
Sentence three presents the position of
those who defend [the practice of engaging in disinformation campaigns]. These proponents wish to prevent damage to
America's political interests.
Sentence four drifts into idiomatic usage—
fight fire with fire—an expression that means, roughly, to respond in the same manner. Proponents are also now called
apologists, an advanced term that refers to those who defend a controversial position.
Sentence five is a witty remark that is meant as a counter to the views of the apologists. The author does
not believe in fighting fire with fire when it comes to using disinformation campaigns.
Because of the last two sentences in particular, I would be surprised if this passage ever appeared on the GMAT™. But we are interested in following the thread of ideas, and now that we understand the passage map, we can consider the question and take on the answer choices.
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2023-05-27 at 07.03.07.png
As you can see, I spent nearly 3 minutes breaking down the question before committing to an answer, and I did select (E). My timing had more to do with wanting to grasp the passage on a first read rather than looking to lean on the answer choices for guidance (a dangerous strategy in general).
Answer choice (A) fails because the author never describes an
ethical compass by which to judge anything, not to mention that the passage never tells us anything about how
effective disinformation campaigns may be. We know that some people use them, and we know what they are
intended to do, but no related outcomes are discussed.
Answer choice (B) fails because the author is not concerned with
America's moral standing, but with
the propaganda war against [America's] foes and the manner in which the nation engages in such a war, either by telling the
truth, as the author advocates, or by launching a disinformation campaign.
Answer choice (C) fails for the same reason we discussed above in our analysis of answer choice (A): the passage does not discuss
actual political gains or
losses, just intended outcomes. As such, we have no idea about the duration of any potential gains or losses.
Answer choice (D) fails because the author is not primarily concerned with
Soviet disinformation campaigns, but with those that
American intelligence agents have launched, presumably against the Soviets. Also, the passage does not discuss
America's standing in Europe. We do not know how America stands in the eyes of European societies or governments.
Answer choice (E) is correct because it is clear that the author does
not endorse the use of
"disinformation" campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe, and the
interests referred to in the passage in lines two and three can best be understood as one and the same:
political interests (line three). Notice, too, the comparative
more effective at the end of the passage. The reader seems to be meant to understand that
water is analogous to the
truth from the beginning of the passage, and the message is that truth, not disinformation campaigns, can more effectively sway the propaganda war in favor of America.
Perhaps the question makes more sense now. I would be happy to answer any follow-up questions anyone may have. As always, good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
Thank you Andrew for the detailed response on this.
I struggled really hard with this question and found all the answers to be equally wrong. My take on Option E was(and I could be very well wrong here) a little different. The argument says - "....finds water more effective.". this is not equal to "not effective". it could very well be that both are effective but the author's take is relatively better.
Although if I had to pick an answer from the lot, I would have chosen E, but for the reasons mentioned above, I feel it is not a truly intelligent selection on my part
Am I correct in my approach? Please help. thank you
close
23 Jun 2019, 02:49
57%
(01:48)
wrong 
