That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestio

Question

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?

(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy.

(B) From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers.

(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident.

(D) The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation.

(E) It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at
peace.

iamdp · Answer

Hi 
the conclusion of the argument is that some nuclear weapons are still in existence so this fear is the reason that superpowers have not used any as this can initiate a war and the proof for this cited is > No 3rd world war till now.

Now Flaw in the statement can be that it's not because that the weapons exists but something else that's the reason for no war till now.

So clearly it's E

rhine29388 · Answer

conclusion is some nuclear weapons are in existence due to fear of which superpowers have not initiated a war and premise supporting this is that a third world war has not yet happened
break the line of thought between this premise and the conclusion
Option E clearly breaks this link and thus the correct option

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

In order to find a flaw in the argument, we need to prove that the policy of nuclear deterrence is not the sole factor which hold back the world war 3.
Option E says just the same by telling that there can be some other factors too which has caused peace in the world.
Correct Option: E

spetznaz · Answer

The answer is option E. It mentions an alternate reason and thus represents a flaw in the reasoning that deterrence alone is responsible.

Poorvasha · Answer

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.

Premise: Nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The evidence for this is that no third world war has happened between superpowers yet.

Conclusion:Policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable.

We must find a flaw in the argument, something that weakens the conclusion that policy of nuclear deterrence has worked. So, something that shows policy has not worked and that the policy/ deterrence is not the reason for the nuclear war not happening.

(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy: The argument already states that there were nuclear armaments in existence but they kept from using it because of the policy, so policy still works.

(B) From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers. - out of scope

(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident.- again does not question the effectiveness of the policy, nuclear weapons are there but have not been used.

(D) The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation. - it still says that they have refrained form nuclear confrontation, that is what the policy intended to do.

(E) It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at peace - this option casts a doubt on the effectiveness of the policy of nuclear deterrence. Probably there was a recognition of the economic value of peace which resulted in them not using the nuclear weapons. This provides an alternative cause for the conclusion and hence, must the correct answer.

chesstitans · Answer

D is a strengthener.
C is out b/c of "nuclear accident"
B is wrong b/c of "predict future"
A is incorrect b/c of "maintain nuclear" & "drain economy"

Skywalker18 · Answer

I would say the first thing that jumps out to me here is that the armaments prevented "major powers" from using nuclear weapons since WWII. But:

1. What about other, non-major powers? 
2. What if these armaments were motivated by something other than a "policy of nuclear deterrence," such as, as (E) notes, economic interests?

It's a small leap, but it still is one. we don't know if the powers not at all using the weapons is why we haven't had a third WW.

Support 1: the fact that there were nuclear armaments has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons

Support 2: a third world war had not happened yet.

Flaw: the main issue with this problem is that the author mistakes a correlation for causation.

Slightly tricky.

As for the others:

(A) isn't relevant. 
(B) is also irrelevant because this whole question is about what has happened so far, not what will happen. 
(C) is out of scope because we don't even know if this is happening 
(D) lends support to the argument, if anything.
(E) Just because we have a policy of deterrence and have yet to have a world war, it doesn't mean that the deterrence caused the lack of war. That's why E is right - it tells us that we don't know the true cause of no new world war.

Yellkrishna · Answer

A. Economy is irrelevant to the topic. 
B. While this is true, the passage deals with what happened thus far. 
C. Accident, maybe. But war? No. 
D. This strengthens. Nuclear deterrence is working. 
E. This weakens the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument commits the fallacy of false correlation. The argument assumes the fear of the destructive effects of nuclear war has prevented a nuclear exchange. It does not take into account that other factors may have affected events, such as the economic value of remaining at peace.  The answer is (E).

unraveled · Answer

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?

A flaw indicator can be any other reason or genuinely good flaw in the reasoning.

(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant  drain on a country's economy .

(B) From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers. - WRONG.

(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the  minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident . - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while  refraining from a nuclear confrontation . - WRONG. Neutral if not strengthener.

(E) It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at
peace. - CORRECT. Gives another reason.

B loses for it still bases its reasoning on possible future happenings like an accident.

Answer E.

JoeKan1234 · Answer

Original logic: The policy has caused nuclear deterrence.

A. Economy is irrelevant.

B. The argument talks about the past, not the future. Even if B is true, B does not weaken the argument.

C. Similar to A, C is irrelevant.

D. "smaller" means the policy is still effective although it is not totally effective.

E. Correct. If there are other factors, it is possible that the policy does not play a part in nuclear deterrence.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestio

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

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestio

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