I am more inclined towards A, if two sides don't have same thinking then parity may not he enough
whats the source of question, its quite trickier

papgust wrote:Those who think with a hierarchical mentality strive for situations in which their side is dominant and the other side is submissive. In contrast, communal thinkers strive for parity among all sides. Therefore, achieving parity of nuclear weaponry between the East and the West is not enough for Western military generals.

Which one of the following assumptions would provide the most support for the conclusion above?
(A) Western military generals do not have the same mentality as do Eastern military generals.
(B) Parity in nuclear weaponry requires that military generals from both the East and the West think in communal terms.
(C) Western military generals want parity with respect to strength in nuclear weaponry between the East and the West.
(D) Western military generals' thinking about relative strength in nuclear weaponry is hierarchical.
(E) The thinking of military generals with respect to relative strength in nuclear weaponry is either hierarchical or communal.

OA to follow.

I think D.

IMO D.

IMO D

(A) Western military generals do not have the same mentality as do Eastern military generals.
-->Lets negate this saying Western military generals have same mentality as do Eastern military generals.But this doesnt affect out conclusion "achieving parity of nuclear weaponry between the East and the West is not enough for Western military generals".. The reason is let say Western and Eastern both have hierarchical mentality , then still Western guys wont be agreeing to the parity .They will not agree with parity as long as they are hierarchical .So this options is killed as negation here doesnt affect the conclusion .

(B) Parity in nuclear weaponry requires that military generals from both the East and the West think in communal terms.
-->It may be true that parity requires both East and West to think in communal terms but thats Not necessary for conclusion though . If assumption is both sides are communal in thinking then the issue of West not being satisfied with just parity wont have cropped up in first place.

(C) Western military generals want parity with respect to strength in nuclear weaponry between the East and the West.
-->If they wanted then why would they crib about parity not being enough.
(D) Western military generals' thinking about relative strength in nuclear weaponry is hierarchical.
---> Yes. Beacuse Western guys are hierachical in nature thats why they look beyong parity and wont settle for anything less than that . If they wont have been hierarchical then they wont have had been any issue.
(E) The thinking of military generals with respect to relative strength in nuclear weaponry is either hierarchical or communal.
--->May be true but not a necessary assumption for the argument . It may be that East and West both are hierarchical . All we know that West did not like parity but we dont know anything about Eastern ones. Eastern ones may be herarchical or communal ,no clue

IMO - D because if the thinking of Western military generals is not hierarchical then the parity of nuclear weaponry between east and west should be enough for western generals. It's not enough because western generals would want to be on the dominant side.

OA is D. Thanks guys!

papgust wrote:Those who think with a hierarchical mentality strive for situations in which their side is dominant and the other side is submissive. In contrast, communal thinkers strive for parity among all sides. Therefore, achieving parity of nuclear weaponry between the East and the West is not enough for Western military generals.

Which one of the following assumptions would provide the most support for the conclusion above?
(A) Western military generals do not have the same mentality as do Eastern military generals.
(B) Parity in nuclear weaponry requires that military generals from both the East and the West think in communal terms.
(C) Western military generals want parity with respect to strength in nuclear weaponry between the East and the West.
(D) Western military generals' thinking about relative strength in nuclear weaponry is hierarchical.
(E) The thinking of military generals with respect to relative strength in nuclear weaponry is either hierarchical or communal.

OA to follow.

Good one...but wats the source ???!

This is a question from LSAT sets.

Do these LSAT sets have answer explanations. Is this a book or collection of just questions and answers

Normally LSAT sets do not come with explanations. They come only with answers.