Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United

Question

Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?

(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.

(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.

(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.

(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.

(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello, everyone. At the heart of this one lies  an assumption . Although many people are keen on the negation technique for such questions, and I have seen masterful application of it by Experts and other high-scoring members, I still prefer what I call a "missing link" strategy, since I do not prefer to alter anything about the actual passage, question, or answer choices. I thought I would take a moment to illustrate how my method works. All you really have to do is insert each answer choice between the premise and conclusion to test for a logical link, a clear and direct link.

Premise :  These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.

Conclusion :  This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

Now, drop (A) between the two to test.

Close, but not quite accurate. Just because something was  intended to act as a deterrent  does not mean that it was  the only thing  that could have worked. This sort of overreaching or definitive language is often used in incorrect answer choices.

We can only speculate on what may have happened with the conditional presented, which in any case does not connect our premise to the conclusion.

See above analysis.

I find it hard to fathom how this information would even come close to serving as a bridge between premise and conclusion. Try it out if you want to see what I mean:

1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.

2)  The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.

3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. This should be an easy answer to see off.

Repeat the process above, and you will see that the softer, cautious language used here creates a more logical link:

1) These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin.

2)  The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.

3) This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

I like to say that when it comes to Verbal, you want to look for the safest answer, the one that proves hardest to argue against. Again, (A) can be tempting, but extreme language often ends up being too extreme. Our winner here is (E).

I hope that the process I have outlined above may be of use to someone. Good luck with your studies. (And if you love the negation technique, keep at it and get better and better at applying it.)

- Andrew

Kinshook · Answer

Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?

(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the  only thing  that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin.
Extreme statement

(B) If the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own, the bombers would not have served as a deterrent.
Having nuclear weapons does not mean there will not be a nuclear attack.

(C) If the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the Allies would have bombed Moscow.
E is better.

(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan to weaken the Allied presence in Germany.
Out of context.

(E) The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation.

IMO E

Ekland · Answer

I thought this shouldn't be a 700level question until I saw LSAT. A is thrown out bcos of extreme ONLY. how do we tell it's the ONLY?

B. how do we know? C. Does it matter if the allies would have bombed or fled? D. How does that relate? E. IT WAS A SOLID MIND GAME. that's it! E is the answer

unraveled · Answer

Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United States sent to a British airfield B-29 bombers that were modified to carry nuclear weapons. These bombers were within striking distance of Moscow, and were intended to act as a deterrent against Soviet attack on the Allied zones of Berlin. This tactic apparently worked, as no attack on Berlin was forthcoming.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?

(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation  is the only thing that would have discouraged  an attack on Berlin. - WRONG. Not a necessary condition. There could have been other things also.

(B)  If  the Soviets had had nuclear weapons of their own,  the bombers would not have served  as a deterrent. - WRONG. Conditionality that can go either way. But more importantly not a necessary condition for the passage to stand as it is.

(C)  If  the Soviets had attacked Berlin, the  Allies would have bombed  Moscow. - WRONG. Like B only.

(D) The isolation of Berlin was part of a broad plan  to weaken the Allied presence in Germany . - WRONG. It was right but that's not the assumption that passage needs.

(E) The  Soviets believed  that, if they attacked Berlin,  there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation . - CORRECT. If not then passage falls apart.

Answer E.

djangobackend · Answer

(A) The threat of nuclear retaliation is the only thing that would have discouraged an attack on Berlin. - on negation - TNR was not the only thing so other things also existed that discouraged attack on berlin but this doesn't mean that TNR was not a "relevant" factor i.e., presence of other factors doesn't make this factor irrelevant. It could very well be one of the MAIN reasons so its not an assumption, its at best a strengthener. This could be a sufficient condition but not a necessary.

E - The Soviets believed that, if they attacked Berlin, there was some chance the bombers would be used in retaliation. - on negation - soviets believed that there is NO chance .....so it means that soviets did not think of bombers as a threat so it breaks the conclusion that berlin wasn't attacked due to fear of nuclear escalation.

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.

Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United

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

Historian: In 1948, after the Soviet Union isolated Berlin, the United

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