Social scientists have traditionally defined multipolar international

Social scientists have traditionally defined
multipolar international systems as consisting of three
or more nations, each of roughly equal military and
economic strength. Theoretically, the members of such
(5) systems create shifting, temporary alliances in response
to changing circumstances in the international
environment. Such systems are, thus, fluid and flexible.
Frequent, small confrontations are one attribute of
multipolar systems and are usually the result of less
(10) powerful members grouping together to counter
threats from larger, more aggressive members seeking
hegemony. Yet the constant and inevitable
counterbalancing typical of such systems usually
results in stability. The best-known example of a
(15) multipolar system is the Concert of Europe, which
coincided with general peace on that continent lasting
roughly 100 years beginning around 1815.

Bipolar systems, on the other hand, involve two
major members of roughly equal military and
(20) economic strength vying for power and advantage.
Other members of lesser strength tend to coalesce
around one or the other pole. Such systems tend to be
rigid and fixed, in part due to the existence of only one
axis of power. Zero-sum political and military
(25) maneuverings, in which a gain for one side results in
an equivalent loss for the other, are a salient feature of
bipolar systems. Overall superiority is sought by both
major members, which can lead to frequent
confrontations, debilitating armed conflict, and,
(30) eventually, to the capitulation of one or the other side.
Athens and Sparta of ancient Greece had a bipolar
relationship, as did the United States and the USSR
during the Cold War.

However, the shift in the geopolitical landscape
(35) following the end of the Cold War calls for a
reassessment of the assumptions underlying these two
theoretical concepts. The emerging but still vague
multipolar system in Europe today brings with it the
unsettling prospect of new conflicts and shifting
(40) alliances that may lead to a diminution, rather than an
enhancement, of security. The frequent, small
confrontations that are thought to have kept the
Concert of Europe in a state of equilibrium would
today, as nations arm themselves with modern
(45) weapons, create instability that could destroy the
system. And the larger number of members and
shifting alliance patterns peculiar to multipolar systems
would create a bewildering tangle of conflicts.

This reassessment may also lead us to look at the
(50) Cold War in a new light. In 1914 smaller members of
the multipolar system in Europe brought the larger
members into a war that engulfed the continent. The
aftermath—a crippled system in which certain
members were dismantled, punished, or voluntarily
(55) withdrew—created the conditions that led to World
War II. In contrast, the principal attributes of bipolar
systems—two major members with only one possible
axis of conflict locked in a rigid yet usually stable
struggle for power—may have created the necessary
(60) parameters for general peace in the second half of the
twentieth century.

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Peace can be maintained in Europe only if a new bipolar system emerges to replace Cold War alliances.
(B) All kinds of international systems discussed by social scientists carry within themselves the seeds of their own collapse and ultimately endanger international order.
(C) The current European geopolitical landscape is a multipolar system that strongly resembles the Concert of Europe which existed through most of the nineteenth century.
(D) Multipolarity fostered the conditions that led to World War II and is incompatible with a stable, modern Europe.
(E) The characterization of multipolar systems as stable and bipolar systems as open to debilitating conflict needs to be reconsidered in light of the realities of post-Cold War Europe.


2. Which one of the following statements most accurately describes the function of the final paragraph?

(A) The weaknesses of both types of systems are discussed in the context of twentieth-century European history.
(B) A prediction is made regarding European security based on the attributes of both types of systems.
(C) A new argument is introduced in favor of European countries embracing a new bipolar system.
(D) Twentieth-century European history is used to expand on the argument in the previous paragraph.
(E) The typical characteristics of the major members of a bipolar system are reviewed.


3. The author’s reference to the possibility that confrontations may lead to capitulation (lines 27–30) serves primarily to

(A) indicate that bipolar systems can have certain unstable characteristics
(B) illustrate how multipolar systems can transform themselves into bipolar systems
(C) contrast the aggressive nature of bipolar members with the more rational behavior of their multipolar counterparts
(D) indicate the anarchic nature of international relations
(E) suggest that military and economic strength shifts in bipolar as frequently as in multipolar systems


4. With respect to the Cold War, the author’s attitude can most accurately be described as

(A) fearful that European geopolitics may bring about a similar bipolar system
(B) surprised that it did not end with a major war
(C) convinced that it provides an important example of bipolarity maintaining peace
(D) regretful that the major European countries were so ambivalent about it
(E) confident it will mark only a brief hiatus between long periods of European multipolarity


5. Which one of the following statements concerning the Concert of Europe (lines 14–17) can most reasonably be inferred from the passage?

(A) Each of the many small confrontations that occurred under the Concert of Europe threatened the integrity of the system.
(B) It provided the highest level of security possible for Europe in the late nineteenth century.
(C) All the factors contributing to stability during the late nineteenth century continue to contribute to European security.
(D) Equilibrium in the system was maintained as members grouped together to counterbalance mutual threats.
(E) It was more stable than most multipolar systems because its smaller members reacted promptly to aggression by its larger members.