GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

It is currently 25 May 2018, 09:51

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
MBA Section Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5108
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2015, 08:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (01:40) correct 30% (01:43) wrong based on 596 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________

Have an MBA application Question? ASK ME ANYTHING!

My Stuff: Four Years to 760 | MBA Trends for Indian Applicants

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: A mind once opened never loses..!
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 215
Location: India
MISSION : 800
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2015, 01:20
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Thank you

+KUDOS

> I CAN, I WILL <

Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 564
Location: United States (LA)
Reviews Badge
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2016, 13:54
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
Expert Post
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1888
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2016, 01:49
souvik101990 wrote:
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.


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
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 505
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 07:07
The answer is option E. It mentions an alternate reason and thus represents a flaw in the reasoning that deterrence alone is responsible.
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1905
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jun 2017, 22:41
this question is not a mix question, but the question makers want test takers to treat the question as a weakening question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 80
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 07:27
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.
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1905
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2017, 14:36
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"
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1982
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Dec 2017, 00:36
souvik101990 wrote:
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.


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.
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked   [#permalink] 15 Dec 2017, 00:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by

That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.