Reading Comprehension

In the twenty-first century, terrorism has become a common term in the day-to-day political vernacular. However, despite its prevalence in everyday conversation, the term terrorism is not easily defined. First, there is the question of target. There is a large debate over what the target of terror must be. Many writers believe that the targeting of "innocents" is a key component of terrorism. Douglas Lackey writes, "... the common soldier is not a terrorist, because the majority of his victims are soldiers, and a minority of his victims are civilians." All bombs kill things in their target radius regardless of military status; they are indiscriminate by nature. Lackey goes on to argue that what makes a bombing campaign constitute indiscriminate killing is the targeting of an area with a high ratio of non-military units to military units. Thus, discrimination is not in the weapons used, but in the targets decided upon. A second controversy is that of circumstance; that is, whether or not terrorist acts must be performed in times of peace, or if they can include acts perpetrated during war. Some believe that even in a war, such as World War II, terrorist actions can be undertaken. However, there is a viewpoint that in war the right to certain types of attack expands, making actions that might be considered terrorist in other contexts (such as surprise attacks or raids) justified. The final controversy is that of perpetrator size. This debate largely manifests itself in the question of whether or not state actors can be accused of terrorist action. While Ariel Merari acknowledges the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, he decides to narrowly define terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups. He does so because, "if the definition of terrorism is equally applicable to nuclear war, conventional war, and guerrilla warfare, the term loses any useful meaning." Unlike some theorists, Merari does not reject state actors because of a pro-state bias, but rather concludes that the broader the term becomes, the less useful it becomes in a dialogue.
Lackey and Merari would be most likely to agree on what judgment regarding terrorism?

(A) That an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty.
(B) That an attack that targeted primarily civilians, rather than members of a military, would necessarily be a terrorist attack.
(C) That the term terrorism is very difficult to define. (D) That terrorism can only be carried out during peacetime.
(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country's military could not be said to commit a terrorist act.

Option A or E. I will go with E.

What is the OA and the source?

Is the Answer A???

Both of them seem to agree that under certain circumstances, an act normally considered terrorism does not amount to terrorism. (i.e during war and broad based terror). If they could agree on something like that, then what is the answer choice ?

rohitacmilan wrote: Lackey and Merari would be most likely to agree on what judgment regarding terrorism?

(A) That an individual soldier in a country's military would not typically commit terrorist acts in the course of duty.
(B) That an attack that targeted primarily civilians, rather than members of a military, would necessarily be a terrorist attack.
(C) That the term terrorism is very difficult to define.
(D) That terrorism can only be carried out during peacetime.
(E) That a member of an elite branch of a given country's military could not be said to commit a terrorist act.

A) Seems to be close. Lets keep it for now.
Lackey says the common soldier is not a terrorist,
Merari acknowledges the possibility of state sponsored terrorism, he decides to narrowly define terrorism as a body of violence perpetrated by sub-state insurgent groups.
Thus according to Merari there is only a slight possibility that some one acting on behalf of the government (state actor) might be involved in terrorism.

B) Lackley would agree that an attack on Civilian (the words majority and primarily seem equivalent in the context) is an act of terrorism, but we cannot find Merrari mentioning civilians. Merrari is concerned with only government agency sponsored terrorism. Only matches one viewpoint.

C) Faulty use of detail: Author states that "the term terrorism is not easily defined" but not Lackey and Merrari, they go ahead and define their version of terrorism on the basis of target and perpetrator size.

D) Second controversy mentions something about definition of terrorism during "peace time". Lackey and Merrari have their viewpoints about the other two definitions. This is definitely out!

E) OMG! Very close option. Perfectly in sync with whatever is said in A. After much deliberation I found a reason to reject this point. The words "could not be said to commit" seems extreme when compared with A's "would not typically commit".

Correct Answer seems to be A

Having said that, I'd like to see what experts think about this passage. Does it fit the typical GMAT standards or not. Leaps taken in the reasoning (categorizing something into Non-state or state actor), the selection of answer choices, etc all point to the latter. Would love to know the original Source of the passage!

... Just my two cents worth

Regards,
Vivek

IMO A