The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would b...
PaytonjdFebruary 7, 2023
Correct Answer Explanation
I got the correct answer, but I was confused when reading the explanation for it. What exactly does the explanation mean when it says "the logic shouldn't be analyzed"? Shouldn't we always analyze logic?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, I see what you mean- this is confusingly worded. I think that it's trying to say is that for a must be true, we don't have to assess whether the logic is sound or valid, since we are not being asked to evaluate an argument. I agree we still need to understand the logic, just not to attack or evaluate it.
JohnSeptember 27, 2023
Hello- The correct answer here again, is not making sense.
The passage message nothing about military power that the nation being attacked actually has. Let alone UNSURPASSED military power.
How is this the correct answer?
Thanks alot.
JohnSeptember 27, 2023
the passage mentions
Emil-KunkinSeptember 29, 2023
Hi, for this we need to start with what the question is asking us to do. For a necessary assumption we need to find an answer choice that the author must agree with, so effectively a must be true.
The core of the authors argument is that for deterrence to work, you need others to believe you have sufficient deterrent capacity. That is, we need to show the world we are able to hurt them if anyone attacks us. This level of deterrence might be the bare minimum to retaliate and do damage, or it might be the strongest deterrent force in the world. Either way, the author believes that when a country has sufficient deterrent force, it's in their interest to to display it to the world. So, this surely would be true of the country with the strongest deterrent force as well. What is true of all countries greater than X in terms of deterrent would surely be true of the country with the strongest possible deterrent.
