The problem with arms reduction is that it is an illusory

Question

The problem with arms reduction is that it is an illusory concept benefitting none. Even though designated stockpiles are being reduced, the weapons race continues, as the destructive power of new technologies and remaining arsenals is enhanced in order to maintain the pre-existing firepower. Thus, although it fosters an illusion of progress, arms reduction does nothing to curtail the proliferation of weaponry, and all must continue to live under the constant threat of annihilation.

Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author's argument?

A) Arms reduction allows steady maintenance of the existing balance of power.

B) No arms limitation proposals have aimed at completely eliminating a nation's armament stockpile.

C) The five largest military powers have increased funding for new weapons in each of the last ten years.

D) The distinction between offensive and defensive weapon systems is often merely a matter of interpretation.

E) Arms limitation treaties have only accounted for the elimination of fiteen percent of the total firepower possessed by the five largest military powers.

crisnas · Answer

E??
I will post the resons if I'm right.


Krishna

ywilfred · Answer

I'll take E. It says the arms limitation program is useless.

kwasi7 · Answer

I will want to go for C here. 

Based on this statement "as the destructive power of new technologies and remaining arsenals is enhanced in order to maintain the pre-existing firepower".

coffeeloverfreak · Answer

C. It's the only one that adds evidence that would further support the author's argument. If the military powers are spending more on new weapons, it strengthens the author's claim that countries are enhancing the destructive power of new technologies.

A neither strengthens nor weakens the argument; it says the power balance stays the same but says nothing about the destructive power of weaponry.

B talks about proposals, not actual facts. And nobody, including the author, stated that complete elimination of all arms is necessary to achieve progress. Too extreme.

D is out of scope. 

E is a 180. If 15% of the firepower was eliminated, that could count as progress towards disarmement, albeit limited progress.

Carloz · Answer

another c.

nakib77 · Answer

I think it is 'C'.
-nakib

FN · Answer

C for me too...

please post OA/OE...soon 

thanks

popew626 · Answer

OA is C. The OE is just like 'freak's explantion except that it says that E supports the notion that progress is being made, not the "illusion of progress"

The problem with arms reduction is that it is an illusory

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