#26 - In the aftermath of the Cold War

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)

This is a very well-written question, since the correct answer choice is difficult to prephrase precisely
and each of the incorrect answer choices are wrong in very precise ways. During the Cold War, many
countries were united by the significance of their common military and ideological interests, despite
their varying economic interests. In the aftermath of the Cold War, formerly allied nations found that
they were no longer bound by a common enemy, and were thus forced to interact delicately to maintain
their allegiance in the face of the varying economic goals that still existed. Note that these economic
tensions may have been overlooked during the Cold War, but they were not completely absent. The
tensions were merely overshadowed by more pressing issues that required international cooperation.
Such distinctions, minor as they may appear, are often the key to eliminating incorrect answer choices.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus describes the increased economic strain on international relations
between previously allied nations. Since allied nations cooperated militarily with each other during the
Cold War, there is no comparison between nations that once competed militarily and are now competing
economically. Therefore, the stimulus does not conform to the proposition that international economic
competition cause greater tension than international military competition.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice begins well by mentioning the strength of bonds derived from
fear a common enemy, which certainly describes the state of international relations during the Cold
War. However, the stimulus does not state that these countries shared common economic goals. Rather,
it implies the opposite since certain economic tensions were no longer as easy to overlook as they once
were. Without evidence of bonds between allies derived from common economic goals, this proposition
cannot be said to conform to the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): Like answer choice (B), this answer choice begins well. The Cold War was a
period of military commitment between countries. However, the fact that allied nations were once more
willing to overlook economic tensions does not mean they ever reached a fundamental agreement about
economic matters. Be careful not to assume more than the stimulus permits – overlooking economic
concerns is clearly not the same as agreeing about them. Also, the ease with which countries are able to
reach economic agreement is never discussed in the stimulus, so this answer choice cannot be correct.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is an overstatement of the information presented in the stimulus.
While the stimulus suggests that certain economic matters among allied nations are now considered
more important than they were during the Cold War (or that international economic competition was
overshadowed by the need for international military cooperation), it does not follow that such matters
were ever considered unimportant.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is measured and precise,
without exaggeration or unwarranted comparisons. Like answer choice (B), this answer choice mentions
the impact of a common enemy upon the strength of bond between nations. Unlike (B), however, this
answer choice also correctly describes the impact of that bond upon economic tensions between those
nations. This proposition effectively explains the situation described in the stimulus.

[jcough346]

Can I get an explanation of the stimulus and the corresponding answer choices? I eliminated D and E and to be honest I didn't feel as though any answer worked.
Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Happy to help here, jcough, but first, tell us more about your analysis. What did YOU think the stimulus was saying? Was an argument present, and, if so, what was the conclusion? What did you prephrase in response to the stem, and what led you to eliminate those two answer choices but not the other three? We can almost always be more helpful when we have a greater understanding of what your process was like and how you arrived at certain ideas.

Send us more info, and we'll see if we can shed a little light on things!

[mN2mmvf]

I didn't think choice (E) was measured and precise; it talked about "*ignoring* economic tensions" which seems like awfully strong language. Just because economic negotiations were easier during a period of war with a common enemy, that doesn't mean that economic tensions were entirely ignored during that period.

I considered choices (C) and (B), and eliminated (C) because I thought that both pre- and post-war a military commitment may still have been in effect.

I agree that there's nothing said explicitly about "common economic goals" in (B), but why have negotiations at all if there are no goals in common? That seems to defy the usual understanding of a negotiation in my opinion; even if neither side wants the same things, and the negotiations are hostile, both sides still want an agreement that is respected by each, and that constitutes a common goal.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this one, mN2mmvf! I would have to say that "ignored" isn't all that strong, relatively speaking, because it is synonymous with "overlooked" as used in the stimulus. The stimulus makes clear that the tensions were present all along, even before the end of the Cold War, but they were ignored or overlooked during that time.

My problem with answer B is that the stimulus tells us nothing about the strength of bonds between nations, either during or after the Cold War. I don't know that the bonds were any stronger, but only that allies were more focused on other issues during the Cold War and thus ignored certain economic tensions. I would also follow up on what the official explanation said and disagree with you somewhat about there needing to be common goals in order to negotiate, as it is entirely possible that these nations had entirely incompatible goals and that is what created the need to negotiate. Common goals might actually make negotiations easier, not more strained, don't you think?

Give that some thought and let us know if it helps clarify things for you some. Keep up the good work!

[sunshine123]

Hello,


My main problem with E is that it states that a common enemy contributes to STRENGTHENED BONDS between allies. Arguably, such a strengthening of bonds is not explicitly stated in the stimulus, but apparently the mater is implicit in the argument according to this answer choice. Easier international relations and reduced tensions does not seem to entail a "strengthened bond" any more than over-looking economic problems entails agreeing over them. What gives?

Another thing , one of the proctors notes that C is wrong because the stimulus states that an "allies willingness to overlook tensions does not mean they ever reached a fundamental agreement about economic matters." Thats true, but does answer choice C really suggest that such agreement WAS actually reached, or does it suggest that fundamental agreement WOULD BE, or CAN BE more easily reached under such circumstances? If so, then C is not too bad seeing that better relations and lessened tension are things that are obviously more conducive to fundamental agreement between nations.

Thanks again

[Robert Carroll]

sunshine123,

Because international relations were more difficult after the Cold War than during it, something that explains why that's the case would be a good way to strengthen this argument. Answer choice (E) provides such an explanation. Because this is a Strengthen question, new information is allowed by the answer, so, as you point out, a strengthened bond is not in the stimulus. But for a Strengthen question, the information in the answer doesn't have to be in the stimulus. The new information helps explain the situation, which is a good thing.

I think answer choice (C) HAS to mean that a fundamental agreement on economic matters was reached if it's to do anything for the argument. That answer choice claims that it's easier to reach fundamental agreement when there's a military commitment. If there wasn't a fundamental agreement at all...then what is this answer choice helping? If there was not a fundamental agreement during the Cold War, then this answer choice is about a situation that didn't happen, so it's not strengthening the argument. So I'd better have fundamental agreement at some point, because that's the only thing this answer is helping explain. I have no indication that a fundamental agreement was ever reached, so this answer choice is explaining something that isn't even known or suspected to be true in our situation. Answer choice (C) thus may explain other situations, but not the Cold War, so it's no good for this question.

Robert Carroll