That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, t...
ahlamMay 29, 2019
Why is A wrong?
Hello!
Why wouldn't Answer A, "Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy" be a third option to the correlation presented? Couldn't we say that a third world war did not happen for economic reasons?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
(A) says, "Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country's economy."
Based on the argument, we know that have any nuclear armaments is sufficient to create deterrence. A "high level" of nuclear armaments is not necessary, nor is it brought up in the stimulus, so this does not show a flaw of the argument.
(E) says, "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."
(E) picks up on the big flaw in this argument. The argument states that deterrence is what has kept countries from using nuclear weapons against each other, but it's possible that there are alternative explanations, including economic factors or peace treaties, both of which are different from deterrence. Deterrence is one possible explanation, but we can't say for sure it was what worked vs. another factor.
Does this answer your question? Let us know if you'd like more clarification!
ahlamMay 30, 2019
Thanks! That was very helpful!
RaviJune 6, 2019
@ahlam, you're welcome!
Ashley-Tien-2May 7, 2021
How could we tell that "any" nuclear armaments is enough to produce deterrence?
Ashley-Tien-2May 7, 2021
What if answer choice A had said maintaining "any level of nuclear armaments" is expensive. Would that weaken the argument?
