give this one a try

[rahul_tgsp]

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.

OA after discussions
someone pls can u tell me of any link/ source for 700+ level SC and CR questions

[AIM GMAT]

I would go with E.

(A) Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy. -- [Irrelevant to discuss 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. -- [This is a contender option , but it cannot be the flaw in argument , it just a claim that can be added after the argument ]

(C) Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident. -- [Accident is out of scope to discuss]

(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. -- [Again irrelevant option]

(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. -- [This is the flaw , we are not aware about what kept countries to refrain from use of nuclear weapons may be they did so for their own good or saw some other benefit in following strategy other than engaging in war]

[singh181]

IMO E.

because of policy of nuclear deterrence, the 3rd world didnt happen.

Flaw: Author assumes no other factors are responsible.

[HSPA]

+1 for E took me 3.25 sec

[rahul_tgsp]

OA E
as it is a classic case of lacking evidence

the timing is an important issue here as i think it should've been managed in less than 2 min....but i may be wrong