feifei-104

wlee2001

104. That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?

A.        Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country’s economy.

B.        From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers.

C.        Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increase the likelihood of a nuclear accident.

D.       The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation.

E.        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.

答案：E

题干：flaw

原文：

Conclusion：policy worked.

Evidence: end of 2 world war ; 3 world war not happen.

casual explanation.

选项：从下到上

E 他因

D 事实陈述 可以作为weaken

C 无关项

B 迷惑项 请注意：原文是从已知的事实来推测导致事实的原因，所以该事实是不能被反对的。

A 无关项

B 迷惑项 请注意：原文是从已知的事实来推测导致事实的原因，所以该事实是不能被反对的。可是反对事实（论据evidence)不是能达到推翻结论的目的吗？我不明白Ｂ中解释的推理．

leeon

The reasoning of the passage:

nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons--a third world war between superpowers has not happened--> the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable.

Pay attention to the above reasoning, especially the conclusion that the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked, in fact, that's not sure. It's possible that other reasons cause the world war not happen. I think it looks like a assumption question, to be more reasonble, the argument should be provided evidence to rule out other reasons which can cause the world war not happen.

Thus, E is the best answer.

wlee2001

谢谢Leeon!!!

nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons--a third world war between superpowers has not happened--> the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable.

If the premise -  nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons - is refuted, as B does, the conclusion the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked won't be made.

我能明白Ｅ为什么正确，但是无法排除Ｂ．ＦＥＩＦＥＩ的解释说事实不可以反对，他的道理是什么呢？

leeon

The reasoning is

a third world war between superpowers has not happened-->the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked .

the conclusion is that the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked, not a third world war will not happen . B does not concerned on the reasoning of the passage. May be we can name it out of the reasoning.

foreinter

以下是引用leeon在2004-10-20 16:03:00的发言：

The reasoning is

a third world war between superpowers has not happened-->the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked .

the conclusion is that the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked, not a third world war will not happen . B does not concerned on the reasoning of the passage. May be we can name it out of the reasoning.

我总觉得reasoning line:

the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked ---->a third world war between superpowers has not happened

然后E 选项找他因，这样想正确吗