Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jul 1011:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In our conversation, Kishore talks about how strategically he used data analytics to identify high impact areas to focus on as well as his early morning study routine (3 AM prep!) that optimized his GMAT preparation.- Jun 30
08:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates! 
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1206:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join our webinar to master GMAT RC Main Point Questions! Learn effective strategies to decipher passage themes and purposes. Senior Verbal Expert- Sunita Singhvi will equip you with tools to navigate complexities and avoid common traps set by the GMAT.
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1611:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
22 Mar 2021, 06:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
60% (01:58) correct
40%
(02:04)
wrong
based on 822
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?
(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?
(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
22 Mar 2021, 09:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello, everyone. At the heart of this one lies an assumption. Although many people are keen on the negation technique for such questions, and I have seen masterful application of it by Experts and other high-scoring members, I still prefer what I call a "missing link" strategy, since I do not prefer to alter anything about the actual passage, question, or answer choices. I thought I would take a moment to illustrate how my method works. All you really have to do is insert each answer choice between the premise and conclusion to test for a logical link, a clear and direct link.
Premise: These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
Conclusion: This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Now, drop (A) between the two to test.
1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
2) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. This should be an easy answer to see off.
1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
2) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
I like to say that when it comes to Verbal, you want to look for the safest answer, the one that proves hardest to argue against. Again, (A) can be tempting, but extreme language often ends up being too extreme. Our winner here is (E).
I hope that the process I have outlined above may be of use to someone. Good luck with your studies. (And if you love the negation technique, keep at it and get better and better at applying it.)
- Andrew
whyfrzn
Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Premise: These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
Conclusion: This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Now, drop (A) between the two to test.
Quote:
(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
Close, but not quite accurate. Just because something was intended to act as a deterrent does not mean that it was the only thing that could have worked. This sort of overreaching or definitive language is often used in incorrect answer choices.Quote:
(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
We can only speculate on what may have happened with the conditional presented, which in any case does not connect our premise to the conclusion.Quote:
(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
See above analysis.Quote:
(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
I find it hard to fathom how this information would even come close to serving as a bridge between premise and conclusion. Try it out if you want to see what I mean:1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
2) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. This should be an easy answer to see off.
Quote:
(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
Repeat the process above, and you will see that the softer, cautious language used here creates a more logical link:1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.
2) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
I like to say that when it comes to Verbal, you want to look for the safest answer, the one that proves hardest to argue against. Again, (A) can be tempting, but extreme language often ends up being too extreme. Our winner here is (E).
I hope that the process I have outlined above may be of use to someone. Good luck with your studies. (And if you love the negation technique, keep at it and get better and better at applying it.)
- Andrew
General Discussion
22 Mar 2021, 19:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?
(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
Extreme statement
(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons does not mean there will not be a nuclear attack.
(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
E is better.
(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
Out of context.
(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
IMO E
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?
(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
Extreme statement
(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons does not mean there will not be a nuclear attack.
(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
E is better.
(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
Out of context.
(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.
IMO E
I thought this shouldn't be a 700level question until I saw LSAT.
