PT1.S3.Q04, PT1.S4.Q21

CurlyQQQ

Totally dropped the ball on both of these. Help?

For Q4: I thought D was totally wrong and I was completely sure of it because I thought to myself, "How could we possibly know what's in the best interest for the military?" I fell for answers A, C (second choice).

For Q21: I had no idea that "some" came into the mix; totally out of left field.I picked A even though I knew it made no sense. It just made the most sense.

thisissparta

Hey there!

PT1.S3.Q04

The crux of the argument is in the last sentence and its gist is as follows: for a country seeking military deterrence, an aggressor would have to believe that the country it wishes to attack maintains a greater retaliatory force. The entire argument hinges on the word, "believe". The stimulus, in its hypothetical, has outlined a nation that (a) wants to deter enemies and (b) must instill a (perceived) belief of superior military prowess within its aggressor. In this sense, for such a nation, (D) can be reasonably inferred from the stimulus - that is, it would be "in the interests of a nation" seeking deterrence, to instill a belief of prowess within its enemies by letting "potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack".

(A) is strong. "Certain knowledge" is not necessary. Only a belief.
(C) confuses sufficiency and necessity. Recall, the last sentence (which is a paraphrasing of the first), states that a perceived belief of military superiority is sufficient to maintain deterrence. AC (C) says that if a nation does not attack (i.e., an attack is deterred), then it was because of a belief of the opponents military superiority.

PT1.S4.Q21

Remember, this is a must be true question. Again, a MUST be true question. The correct AC must absolutely, under all circumstances, be true.

The gist of the stimulus states that if a society has crimes, it cannot be lawless. It arrives at this conclusions through a series of reasoning patterns. First, it states that if a society is considered to be law"less" (LL), then that would imply that it is without laws (/L). And if a city is without laws, it cannot have crimes (/C).

In lawgic that's: LL -> /L -> /C

If you take the contraspositive of the above, you arrive at the conclusion that a city with crimes, cannot be lawless.

Now, scan through the ACs:

(A) L -> C? Nope
(B) /C -> /L? Nope.
(C) many laws -> many crimes? not too different from (A). Nope.
(D) some laws -> some crimes? Can be true! "Some" is vague and implies "at least 1" and can absolutely be true, under all circumstances.
(E) many laws -> many crimes? too strong. you can have a few laws and many crimes.

Hope this helped!

CurlyQQQ

@thisissparta this was so helpful!! I didn't translate correctly!

thisissparta

@CurlyQQQ said:
@thisissparta this was so helpful!! I didn't translate correctly!

Happy to have helped!!