PrepTest 121, Section 2, Question 3
Social scientists have traditionally defined multipolar international systems(464 more words not shown)
The author's reference to the(18 more words not shown)
- Aindicate that bipolar(6 more words not shown)
- Billustrate how multipolar(7 more words not shown)
- Ccontrast the aggressive(13 more words not shown)
- Dindicate the anarchic(4 more words not shown)
- Esuggest that military(12 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
Capitulation means one side gives in. Here it appears in the conventional description of bipolar rivalry: competition can lead to confrontation, armed conflict, and finally one side's surrender. I'd predict that the reference shows a potentially unstable feature of bipolarity.
What we’re looking for
Don't replace that local job with the writer's later reassessment. The writer can first explain a theory and then question how well it fits the evidence.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A rivalry that can end in destructive conflict and one side's capitulation isn't a picture of secure, lasting balance. This detail helps explain the conventional concern about bipolar systems.
- B
No transition from multipolarity to bipolarity is described. The sentence is already discussing a bipolar system.
- C
We haven't been told that multipolar members are more rational. A system's relative stability doesn't establish that its members reason better.
- D
This is a specific claim about rivalry within bipolar systems, not an argument that international relations as a whole are anarchic.
- E
The reference doesn't compare how frequently military and economic strength shift in the two systems. It describes a possible outcome of confrontation.
More Purpose of Claim questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Purpose of Claim questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.