Uri wrote:As one who has always believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war against our foes, I am distressed by reports of “disinformation” campaigns by American intelligence agents in Western Europe. In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own. Those who defend this practice say that lying is necessary to counter Soviet disinformation campaigns aimed at damaging America’s political interests. These apologists contend that one must fight fire with fire. I would point out to the apologists that the fire department finds water more effective.

The author’s main point is that
(A) although disinformation campaigns may be effective, they are unacceptable on ethical grounds
(B) America’s moral standing in the world depends on its adherence to the truth
(C) the temporary political gains produced by disinformation campaigns generally give way to long-term losses
(D) Soviet disinformation campaigns have done little to damage America’s standing in Europe
(E) disinformation campaigns do not effectively serve the political interests of the United States


OA: [spoiler](E)[/spoiler]

IMO- E,for me the clue here was the first and last line of the CR - Truth our nation's surest weapons & water being more effective than fire which made me find an option where it shows disinformation campaigns are not v.effective.

A- still talks of disinformation being effective
B- Moral standing is not the issue here.
C-Long term losses is not outlined clearly in the argument to be sure of.
D-No mention of damage to America as been mentioned.
E-clearly states that disinformation campaigns not effective in serving America's purpose.

I agree it should be E.

I was stuck between A and E as well, but chose E because of the fight with water claim. That showed that fire with fire (the disinformation) wasn't effective...

Uri wrote:thanks for the replies. actually i was in dilemma regarding option (A). option (E) seemed a bit "strong". moreover the author only "believed that truth is our nation’s surest weapon in the propaganda war", but he has never said that disinformation campaigns are not effective. i would not have hesitated to pick (E) if it said that disinformation campaigns are not as effective as truth.

obviously, the mention of "ethical grounds" in (A) works as a deterrent. but it seems that the tone of the passage indicates ethical grounds. can anyone, considering this question falls in the "abstract" category, say what should be done in this type of cases?

i believe this can be a good learning for many of us.

thanks, everybody! i've understood where i made mistake.

I think the best evidence for E is in this sentence:

"In a disinformation campaign, untruths are disseminated through gullible local journalists in order to damage the interests of our enemies and protect our own."

E is the only answer that points out national interests while A highlight the ethical issue which is not clearly mentionned by the author.