As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapo

Question

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe. In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own. Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire. I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective.

The author’s main point is that

(A) although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) the temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe
(E) disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States

vinayakvaish · Accepted Answer

The argument revolves around the effectiveness of an adopted strategy.

A- This may be true in the real world but has nowhere been mentioned- rule this out
B- Again no mention of morality in the argument- Out
C- The author does does not acknowledge any short term gain- Out
D- Not mentioned- Out
E- Precisely what we are looking for. Disinformation campaigns are not an effective way- Correct

Hit Kudos if this helped you!

komalpatna · Answer

Hii All,

This is my first Solution, Pls Kudos is requested!!!

Passage presents words like "effective" and "America Political Interest" which connects to option E.

Kindly ask, I could elaborate the above solution.

ballest127 · Answer

Hi Expert,

Please clarify to me.

Although I correctly marked E, I have doubt whether we can go too far by stating that the disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve.....

Just because the passage made analogy that " fire department would find water more effectively - that is disinformation campaigns are less effective, can we say that disinformation campaigns are "not" effective.

Thank you.

emilycatharine · Answer

Could you please walk through the reasoning? Any additional advice when tackling ???conclusion??? Qs...?

singhkniraj · Answer

Thanks for your explanation. Don't you think the author is more on a judgemental tone here about one of the strategies used by USA. Nothing has been mentioned about effectively using this or any other strategy and hence A has a slight edge over E .

Ranasaymon · Answer

In the stimulus,the apologists consider lying is necessary to counter disinformation campaign. The author points out that water is more effective than fire to deal with fire.That means, lying is not effective to counter disinformation campaign!

option E repeats the same thing!So,E is the answer!

Posted from my mobile device

option E repeats the same thing!So,E is the answer!

Posted from my mobile device

reynaldreni · Answer

singhkniraj  
Option A states "although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds". Here we are asked to summarize. The passage does not mention if the US disinformation campaign's outcome in terms of effectiveness. Also the author only argues about the correctness of the approach not ethical grounds. For these reasons E is a better option.

AJ0784 · Answer

I think that author is more interested in suggesting alternate ways like water instead of fire. Also the author is distressed on using the approach of disinformation campaigns. So IMO E is not inferred like the effectiveness of serving the political purposes. Option A could be correct.

rishabh1331 · Answer

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe. In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own. Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire. I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective.

The author’s main point is that

(A) although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds ( Ethical grounds is linked with the campaigns, however the author is only distressed by the way these journalists function)
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth (not mentioned )
(C) the temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses (long term losses is not mentioned )
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe ( out of scope)
(E) disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States (mentioned in the last sentence , fire with fire is less effective than fire with water, according to the author)

dmohitprasad · Answer

A states that the disinformation campaign although effective is not ethically correct, but in the premise there is no point being made by the author that disinformation campaign is effective. Therefore A shouldn’t be the answer.

Posted from my mobile device

RahulHGGmat · Answer

Hi Expert,

Hope you are doing well.

I would request you to explain this one to me as I fall for A on the basis of the line "As one who has always believed that truth our nation???s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes.

I would also request you to tell me if there is any specific strategy to answer these types of questions.

Many Thanks in advance.

AndrewN · Answer

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 . 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 . 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. 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 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

vishalsinghvs08 · Answer

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

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapo

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapo

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards