The Theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological

(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks: Incorrect. It might be true but not a necessary condition.

(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation: Incorrect. Opposite

(C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation: Incorrect. It might be true but not necessarily true.

(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack: Correct.

(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation: Incorrect. Out of scope.

This is NOT a GMAT Pill question, but a real LSAT question (However it appears in GMAT Pill )

1) that fear of retaliation is often sufficient to deter would be aggressors.
2) that in order to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power greater than a potential aggressor could defend.


(A) implies that fear of retaliation is required when it uses the words "only if." But the first statement in the stimulus implies that it's "often sufficient."
(B) has the relationship in the second statement backwards. If a nation believes that it's military power surpasses that of others, then it will not be prevented from retaliating - but it may still attack in the first place.
(C) isn't true either. One nation's not attacking doesn't establish that they feared retaliation. Maybe they just got along with the other nation. The stimulus discusses one thing that would prevent a nation from attacking another nation. The stimulus does not discuss the only thing that would prevent one nation from attacking another nation.
(D) must be true. If one nation has a stronger military than any other nation, and military deterrence is achieved by other nations perceiving themselves to be weaker, then the strongest nation should let every other nation know it's strength, so that those other nations will be deterred from attacking.
(E) is not necessarily true. A weaker nation could trick others into thinking that it was stronger and thereby achieve deterrence.

The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?

(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in
retaliation by the country it attacks.
ONLY is the catch word. It can be just one of the many reasons that can determine.

(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power
surpasses that of the other nation.
Again an EXTREME choice.. will not attack if....., There can be various other reasons to attack..

(C) One nation’s failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a
retaliatory attack from the other nation.
Again an EXTREME choice,.. the nation could be peace loving and powerful both.. political compulsions

(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.
YES, correct... If a nation is powerful and others do not know it, the other countries can still attack

(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater
than that of any other nation
again very extreme in giving just one reason for something to happen or not to happen

D

This is an inference question. We are asked to determine which of the answer choices must be true given the statements in the stimulus. The stimulus provides us with 2 statements.

1) that fear of retaliation is often sufficient to deter would be aggressors.
2) that in order to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power greater than a potential aggressor could defend.

(A) implies that fear of retaliation is required when it uses the words "only if." But the first statement in the stimulus implies that it's "often sufficient."
(B) has the relationship in the second statement backwards. If a nation believes that it's military power surpasses that of others, then it will not be prevented from retaliating - but it may still attack in the first place.
(C) isn't true either. One nation's not attacking doesn't establish that they feared retaliation. Maybe they just got along with the other nation. The stimulus discusses one thing that would prevent a nation from attacking another nation. The stimulus does not discuss the only thing that would prevent one nation from attacking another nation.
(D) must be true. If one nation has a stronger military than any other nation, and military deterrence is achieved by other nations perceiving themselves to be weaker, then the strongest nation should let every other nation know it's strength, so that those other nations will be deterred from attacking.
(E) is not necessarily true. A weaker nation could trick others into thinking that it was stronger and thereby achieve deterrence.

From the stimulus, the two conditionals(simplified) we have are:

1)Fear of retaliation -> Deter from attacking
2)If believed to have great enough power by other nations -> Maintain military deterrence

A) 'only if' means the condition is necessary i.e. option A can be simplified to Deter from attacking -> Fear of retaliation. This reverses the order of 1(makes sufficient statement a necessary one) and hence is incorrect.
.
B)If power surpasses another nation ->deter from attacking. This changes the sufficient condition of (1). Nowhere is it mentioned that surpassing power is sufficient to deter an attack.

C) This can be reduced to: Deter from attacking -> believes that it could not withstand a retaliation attack. This is nowhere stated in the stimulus. Even if we assume that 'believes that it could not withstand a retaliation attack' means fear of retaliation, it reverses statement (1). Either way, it's incorrect

(D)Correct. In line with (1) and (2). If aggressors are aware of the power -> it will help maintain military deterrence which is in interests of the country

(E)This can be reduced to: Maintain maximum deterrence -> Maintain the strongest retaliation force. This is incorrect not only because it 'exaggerates' the conditional statement (2), but also reverses it.

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma GMATNinjaTwo

In OA i.e. option D, aren't we making as assumption that it is in "interest" of a nation "not to be attacked". I understand, that although it is common sense and obvious to consider this. But since, nothing about the "interest" of a nation in mentioned in the stimulus, should we go ahead an make an assumption about it?

My question might sound stupid but this is the main reason I rejected option D. Because I did not want to make any assumptions about what is in the "interest" of the nation.

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma GMATNinjaTwo

In OA i.e. option D, aren't we making as assumption that it is in "interest" of a nation "not to be attacked". I understand, that although it is common sense and obvious to consider this. But since, nothing about the "interest" of a nation in mentioned in the stimulus, should we go ahead an make an assumption about it?

My question might sound stupid but this is the main reason I rejected option D. Because I did not want to make any assumptions about what is in the "interest" of the nation.

Your thoughts/explanation will be really helpful.

Thanks in advance.

"Avoiding attack" is the same as "safety of a nation" and same as "in the interest of a nation". They are all synonymous concepts. Even if the argument doesn't use exactly the same words, it certainly means the same thing.

The Theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?

(A) would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks. - WRONG. The two words are extreme.

(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation. - WRONG. Completely opposite to what is the core of the passage.

(C) One nation's failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation. - WRONG. Failing is different from being deterred. Over it after failing believing is not possible as we don't know about this scope.

(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack. - CORRECT. Only issue with this one is "interest of nation". What is it? However, not being attacked or deterring the other nation do suggest nation's interest.

(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation. - WRONG. Why maximum? Only deterrence is enough. Had maximum been not used, it would have had some chance.

Answer C.

Understanding the argument - ­
The Theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. - Background info. 
Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation. - Conclusion. 

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?

(A) would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks. - This is hyperbolic. The argument states that just a "belief" of that is sufficient, but this argument overstates that to "certain knowledge." Moreover, there is no minimum condition relationship established in the argument. Wrong. 

(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation. - Opposite. 

(C) One nation's failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation. - No. Maybe they didn't attack because of political or economic reasons. 

(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack. - ok. 

(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation. - Not implied. ­