#4 - The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple

[ericj_williams]

How is C not a restatement of the last sentence?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Eric,

I'm not sure if you saw the full explanation to this question since this thread has gotten so long! From the first post on the first page, it's:

• Answer choice (C): This answer choice is about belief so it may initially appear attractive. However, it makes a judgment that is unsupported. A nation might fail to attack simply because it is not very aggressive, or has other reasons for not attacking. For example, the United States likely believes itself to to be able to withstand a retaliatory attack from Canada, but at the same time it doesn't attack Canada? Why? Because the two countries are allies of course. Thus, the problem with this answer is revealed: it assumes that every nation is an aggressor and every other nation is a potential victim; that's not how the world works.

(C) isn't a restatement of the last sentence, and (C) goes too far when it gets to this part: "...establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes..." There's a difference between "reason to think" in the stimulus and "establishes" there.

Thanks!

[ericj_williams]

THANK YOU! For taking the time to answer.

[AspenHerman]

Hi!!

After reading through this answer thread, I understand the language that differentiates between (A) and (D) and why the language makes (D) correct. I am a little thrown by the part of D where it says that the nation seeking deterrence has unsurpassed military power. I took that answer choice off the table because it seemed like extra information that wasn't required by the stimulus.

In the future, how can I avoid that pitfall?

The big IF: If (A) changed "certain knowledge" to something more along the lines of "if it believed it would be destroyed", would that suffice to make A true?

Thank you all for you help.
Aspen

[Robert Carroll]

Aspen,

Answer choice (D) is not saying that any country has unsurpassed military power. It's taking the general rule of the stimulus and saying how it will apply in a hypothetically more limited case. Take a stimulus that says "All students in this class must submit a final paper by Friday." The following statement would have to be true: "All students in this class who are named John must submit a final paper by Friday." That statement doesn't entail anyone is named John - it just shows that the general rule about all students would also apply in more specific situations. Similarly, the general rule about deterrence will also apply for countries with unsurpassed military power.

We talk a bit about when information that looks new actually isn't (like in this case) in this blog post: https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid-31 ... e-of-tips/

Your adjustment to answer choice (A) seems to get rid of the big problem with it, and would make it much better.

Robert Carroll

[Sirarpe1122]

Hi, I am having difficulty diagramming this. Can you show me how exactly you would diagram this question to get to the answer, thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

Sirarpe,

There is a diagram in the first post of this thread. Additionally, there are a number of pages of replies, so you might find that any follow-up question you have is addressed there. If not, feel free to post again and we'll address your concerns!

Robert Carroll

[Christmaspuppy]

Hi!

I read the first official reply by Adam. He said there's a mistaken reversal conditional logic flaw in this argument. And he also mentioned the "believed" word. So, is there actually such a flaw?
Why it's not : Fear of retaliation Deterrence Believed to have retaliation power ?
Why these concepts equal to each other since there are clearly different expressions?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, Puppy, that's not what I said. Here it is again to help you out:

To your first question: How is the conclusion a mistaken reversal? It's not! You are absolutely right to note that "fear of" and "belief in" are NOT the same thing. But our explanation didn't say that it WAS a mistaken reversal - it said it was "similar to" a mistaken reversal, which it is, especially when you realize that in order to fear retaliation you must first believe that retaliation is possible. That is, fear requires some level of belief, so saying you fear something DOES mean that, to some extent at least, you believe in it.

If a country is afraid that another country may retaliate against them, they must have some belief that the other country at least may be capable of that retaliation. If you don't believe they can retaliate, why would you fear such retaliation?

[KendrickFrontiers]

Hey PowerScore team,

Got a little tripped up on answer D here. Definitely seemed like the most attractive one out of all of these answer choices, but was wary to pick it because it mentioned that nations should let other nations "become aware" of its power to attack. To me this signaled physical action, but the theory of military deterrence claimed that the belief alone was sufficient to deter aggressors.
Could I be conflating the views of the aggressor and the nation being attacked? Or am I missing some other commonplace inference here. Let me know if that makes sense!