That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:00 am
Thanked: 24 times
Followed by:2 members
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.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
Thanked: 2 times

by martin.jonson007 » Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:05 am
E is correct...

C is tempting but we can't consider it.. b'coz argument has nothing to do wid future events.... out of scope...

Gud ques..

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 1:05 am
Thanked: 11 times

by jube » Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:22 am
E

What is the OA?

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:00 am
Thanked: 24 times
Followed by:2 members

by neerajkumar1_1 » Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:20 am
I was confused between C and E

[spoiler]OA:E[/spoiler]

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:18 am
the author says that "policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable" because due to nuclear wepaons threat no 3rd world was has happened. any point that gives another point for not happening the war should be the answer. hence E

a.out of scope
b.this talks abt future possibilty
c. again a prediction
d. agreed,but why 3rd world was has not happened.this supprots the author stateemnt that it is becasue of nuclear weapons
e.this gives anothe reason "economic value" for avoiding war
neerajkumar1_1 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.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:59 am
Thanked: 4 times

by missionGMAT007 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:25 am
IMO E