military deterrence_LSAT.

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

military deterrence_LSAT.

by gmat_perfect » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:16 am
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.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:21 am
Thanked: 10 times

by saurabhmahajan » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:43 am
IMO : D
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.

This sentence indicates that a nation should pose as a power which can retaliate.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:3 members

by FightWithGMAT » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:19 am
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.
What is wrong with C? How did you eliminate it?
Though D is a strong contender, it is difficult to infer that by letting the potential aggressor aware of the power would make the deterring nation believe that they have a so great deterrence power.

I am confused :(

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Jun 04, 2010 6:34 pm
IMO E

D : It is in the interest ...

The argument nowhere is talking about 'interest'