GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 24 May 2019, 02:15

### 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

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

# That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4272
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

05 Apr 2015, 08:22
1
10
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (02:05) correct 33% (02:08) wrong based on 616 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.

_________________
Manager
Status: A mind once opened never loses..!
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 203
Location: India
MISSION : 800
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2015, 01:20
1
1
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 <
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 497
Location: United States (LA)
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2016, 01:49
1
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 424
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.33
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1530
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 68
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1530
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2291
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4356
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2019, 05:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked   [#permalink] 25 Mar 2019, 05:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by