Subscription pricing
This question is a little complicated to parse because their are two agents in the discussion, the nation who may attack (Potential Aggressor [PA]) and the nation who may be attacked (Target). Clarifying who is who helps set up the lawgic from the stimulus.
In the stimulus you get:
PAs having Fear of Retaliation implies that PAs will hesitate to attack (PAFR -> PAHesitate)
PAFR also implies that PAs are deterred (PAFR -> DetersPAs)
You also get this, which is very unweildy:
if PA thinks Target has great retaliatory power then PA thinks it CANNOT defend itself
(PAThinkTargetHasRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend)
an inference we can make right away is:
if /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR
if PAs think they CANNOT defend against retaliation then PAs have a fear of retaliation
Now we apply valid argument form 3 - Transitive:
PAThinksTargetHasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> /PAThinkCanDefend -> PAFR -> DetersPAs & PAHesitate
Is there an answer choice that leverages the first step in order to optimize the final step? D does.
D: if you want deterrence, tell everyone about your great retaliatory power (because of the lawgic from the stimulus).
A: says "DeterPAs -> /PAThinkCanDefend" which confuses the given sufficient and necessary elements
B: says "PAThinksPA(self)HasGreatRetaliatoryPwr -> DetersPAs" and the stimulus doesn't say anything about that first part
C: assumes nations always attack unless deterred, which common sense indicates is probably false (hopefully) But aside from real world knowledge, it says "if PAHesitate -> /PAThinkCanDefend" (if PA hesitates then PA thinks it can't defend against retaliation). What we can say is that SOME PAs that hesitate were deterred. This answer choice is the same as A in its error.
E: We don’t know that retaliatory force has to be GREATER, only that it has to be “so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation.” Also, superlatives like "maximum" give me pause and seem to appear in false answer choices often.
Missed this one. I chose B as it seemed to create a link between trivial things and them not being taken seriously.
But C does this much better. B is hampered from the get-go by the "most people" qualifier.
If supporting the argument that the sky is blue, would it be more helpful to say "most people say that the sky is blue" or would it be better to say "the sky is actually blue"? The second is better, just as C creates the linkage between trivial things and their unworthiness for serious consideration without bringing opinions into it.