gmat_perfect wrote:The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would-be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking. Clearly, then to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be properly inferred?

(A) A would-be aggressor nation can be deterred from attacking only if it has certain knowledge that it would be destroyed in retaliation by the country it attacks.

(B) A nation will not attack another nation if it believes that its own retaliatory power surpasses that of the other nation.

(C) One nation's failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.

(D) It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack.

(E) Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

I have used the process of elimination.

A. "Only if it has"=> Signals extremity.
B. We can not infer only on this that a nation will attack or it will not attack.
C. A nation may not attack another nation. It does not mean that nation does not have retaliatory power.
D. It can be inferred.
E. It is the aggressor who believes to have retaliatory power.

Answer is D.


What is the easiest way to attack such type of questions?

thanks.