Critical Reasoning

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.

My take on this is B

msrdon wrote:My take on this is B

Explanation please

Rewriting the argument:
Policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far.(as per authors analysis) the reason for this is the fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. And to support the argument the author concludes , "proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened"

Which of the following if true, indicates flaw in the argument( or in other words chalange the argument that nuclear deterant is responsible for avoiding worldwide nuclear exchange or a third world war)

A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy. Economic considerationa are Out of context

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. if this is true then it means that an accident could still trigger a war, insipte having nuclear deterant policy. So it is not only the policy which has resulted in no war senario



C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident. Even with this true we can not corelate accident and war

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. this will support the argument

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. May be an answer

Between B and E, Chose B as it felt right. (Don't have an explanation!)


What's the OA?

msrdon wrote: Between B and E, Chose B as it felt right. (Don't have an explanation!)

What's the OA?

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.

Choice B talks about the future whereas the conclusion is arguing about the past up until now: nuclear deterrence has worked thus far. In the analogy below, Sarah is stating the conclusion and Mike is stating something similar to choice B.

Sarah: I know how to potty train my dog named Kit. Kit hasn't pissed on my carpet ever since she was born.
Mike: It's impossible to know whether Kit is going to pee on your carpet in the future.

Mike isn't weakening Sarah's argument, which is talking about the past up until to the present.

(B)..past is not always the reflection of future

I want to go with E because this is an alternative solution to the passage. The passage states that nuclear deterrence prevents countries from nuking each other and causing world war 3.

Therefore we need to find another reason why countries aren't fighting a nuclear war world war 3. Henceforth E is the best solution, since it states another theory that there is economic value for the country to remain at peace.

A,B,C are all irrelevant since they talk about money and accident, not World War 3 prevention.

D- Is somewhat relevant, it could be use to undermine the conclusion, but the passage did not say it prevents all wars. It only specifically talks about a nuclear wars.

Looking for an expert reply.

Choice B seems to be correct, experts kindly help in this particular question.

E it is.

I see many doubting E so i will explain that one. B talks about future and says that a world war may happen in future. BUT we are not concerned about future we are looking for something that has deterred 3rd world war TILL NOW. Argument says it is nuclear policy and since we have find a flaw we need to find some alternate reason and that is what E provides (an economic policy).

IMO: E. I wonder why people are talking about the future when the question itself doesnt.

What is the OA?

Request the experts to help.

Regards

Mankey,
You are right, E is correct.

mankey wrote:IMO: E. I wonder why people are talking about the future when the question itself doesnt.

What is the OA?

Request the experts to help.

Regards