In the twenty-first century, terrorism has become a common term in the

Question

In the twenty-first century,  terrorism  has become a common term in the day-to-day political vernacular. However, despite its prevalence in everyday conversation, the term terrorism is not easily defined.

First, there is the question of target. There is a large debate over what the target of terror must be. Many writers believe that the targeting of “innocents” is a key component of terrorism. Douglas Lackey writes, “...the common soldier is not a terrorist, because the majority of his victims are soldiers, and a minority of his victims are civilians.” All bombs kill things in their target radius regardless of military status; they are indiscriminate by nature. Lackey goes on to argue that what makes a bombing campaign constitute indiscriminate killing is the targeting of an area with a high ratio of non-military units to military units. Thus, discrimination is not in the weapons used, but in the targets decided upon.

A second controversy is that of circumstance; that is, whether or not terrorist acts must be performed in times of peace, or if they can include acts perpetrated during war. Some believe that even in a war, such as World War II, terrorist actions can be undertaken. However, there is a viewpoint that in war the right to certain types of attack expands, making actions that might be considered terrorist in other contexts (such as surprise attacks or raids) justified.

The final controversy is that of perpetrator size. This debate largely manifests itself in the question of whether or not state actors can be accused of terrorist action. While Ariel Merari acknowledges the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, he decides to narrowly define terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups. He does so because, “if the definition of terrorism is equally applicable to nuclear war, conventional war, and guerrilla warfare, the term loses any useful meaning.” Unlike some theorists, Merari does not reject state actors because of a pro-state bias, but rather concludes that the broader the term becomes, the less useful it becomes in a dialogue.    1 
 1. Lackey and Merari would be most likely to agree on what judgment regarding terrorism?

(A) That an individual soldier in a country’s military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty.
(B) That an attack that targeted primarily civilians, rather than members of a military, would necessarily be a terrorist attack.
(C) That the term terrorism is very difficult to define.
(D) That terrorism can only be carried out during peacetime.
(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country’s military could not be said to commit a terrorist act.

2 
 2. In the context in which it appears, sub-state most nearly means:

(A) operating under a government’s orders
(B) terrorist
(C) insurgent
(D) anarchist
(E) nongovernmental

3 
 3. Each of the following is mentioned in the passage as a reason that the term terrorism is difficult to define EXCEPT:

(A) the nature of the targets of the act
(B) its prevalence in everyday conversation
(C) whether the act in question occurs during wartime or peacetime
(D) whether governmental bodies can be terrorists
(E) the fact that its usefulness as a term is inversely proportional to its inclusiveness

Manhattan GRE 5lb.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. Lackey and Merari would be most likely to agree on what judgment regarding terrorism?

Explanation

The correct answer is option  (A):  That an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty.

The passage discusses the question of what constitutes terrorism and includes the viewpoint presented by Lackey, who argues that the targeting of "innocents" is a key component of terrorism. Lackey specifically states that the common soldier is not a terrorist because the majority of their victims are soldiers, not civilians. According to Lackey, the indiscriminate nature of bombs does not make a soldier a terrorist; it is the targeting of an area with a high ratio of non-military units to military units that constitutes indiscriminate killing.

Based on this information, Lackey would agree that an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty. This aligns with option  (A) .

Now, let's examine the other options and explain why they are incorrect:

(B) That an attack that targeted primarily civilians, rather than members of a military, would necessarily be a terrorist attack.
 This option contradicts Lackey's viewpoint because Lackey argues that the common soldier is not a terrorist, even if their actions result in civilian casualties. He emphasizes that the distinction lies in the target's military status, not in the number of civilian victims.

(C) That the term terrorism is very difficult to define. 
Although both Lackey and Merari acknowledge the difficulty of defining terrorism, the passage does not explicitly state that they would be likely to agree on this judgment. Therefore, this option cannot be inferred from the information provided.

(D) That terrorism can only be carried out during peacetime. 
The passage mentions the controversy over whether terrorist acts must be performed during times of peace or if they can also include acts perpetrated during war. Therefore, it is clear that Lackey and Merari do not share the belief that terrorism can only occur during peacetime. This option is contradicted by the information in the passage.

(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country's military could not be said to commit a terrorist act. 
The passage does not provide any specific information or viewpoints related to this option. Lackey's argument focuses on the targeting of areas and the ratio of military to non-military units, rather than the specific branch or elite status of a military member. Therefore, this option is not supported by the passage.

In conclusion,  option (A)  is the correct answer because it aligns with Lackey's viewpoint that an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty, as their victims are primarily soldiers, not civilians.

Answer: A

yaygmat · Answer

in Q1, why is option E wrong?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Here's (E) in question 1.

(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country’s military could not be said to commit a terrorist act.

Honestly, this question is a little off because the passage says this:

Douglas Lackey writes, “…the common soldier is not a terrorist

and this:

While Ariel Merari acknowledges the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, he decides to narrowly define terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups.

So, it appears that they agree that a member of a state's military cannot be a terrorist and thus would both agree with (E).

However, the writer of the question seems to have felt that Lackey would not agree with choice (E) and that Lackey would take the stance that, while common soldiers do not in general commit terrorist acts during wartime, it's possible that a member of an elite branch of a given country’s military COULD be said to commit a terrorist act in an unusual situation.

mitul19 · Answer

Hi Sajjad, The explanation of option A from Lackey's POV is understandable ,but how can we infer from Merari's POV that option A is correct.?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Merari narrowly defines terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups. He rejects the inclusion of state actors in the definition of terrorism because he believes that broadening the term to include actions by state actors, such as nuclear war or conventional war, would make the term less useful in a dialogue.

With this clarification, we can see that the judgment (A) "That an individual soldier in a country’s military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty" aligns with Merari's position. Since Merari defines terrorism as actions by sub-state insurgent groups, it implies that individual soldiers in a country's military (state actors) would not be committing terrorist acts in the course of their duty.

In the twenty-first century, terrorism has become a common term in the

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

In the twenty-first century, terrorism has become a common term in the

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