Q4

[joseph.carroll.555]

I don't like answer C. I felt like the language in the passage just seemed too cautious and uncommitted to describe the author's attitude as being convinced that the Cold War provides an important example of bipolarity maintaining peace.

The author consistently repeats that a reassessment of the assumptions "may lead us to look at the cold war in a new light." And that the cold war "may have created the necessary parameters for general peace."

How can we make the jump from such restrained language to such strong and decisive language?

If I say the Giants may win tonight, it would be incorrect to describe my attitude as being convinced that they will win.

[ohthatpatrick]

I feel you on the over the top strength of language on (C).

This is where LSAT would lean on the question stem's wording of "most accurately described as".

Is there a better choice than (C)?

One thing to like about (C) is that it reinforces the main point. LSAT authors love to go against the grain, to show us how what has been typically assumed or commonly thought may be a misconception.

The author comes along to set the record straight, to clarify the misconception.

It's typically assumed / commonly thought that multipolar systems are more stable and less prone to calamity than bipolar systems.

But this author comes along as suggests (with less than 100% conviction) that we might have that wrong. After all, the history of the 20th century gives us a multipolar system that twice created a World War. And a bipolar system dominated over nearly 50 years of relative peace.

The author isn't necessarily convinced that bipolar systems are better at maintaining peace than are multipolar systems. But the author IS definitely convinced that the Cold War is an example of a bipolar system that presided over a peaceful period.

The line reference you brought up, 49-50, is blunted by the fact that it's saying "this reassessment may lead us to look at the Cold War in a new light."

The author might be fully convinced that we SHOULD look at the Cold War in a new light but only somewhat convinced that we WILL end up looking at the Cold War in a new light.

So I definitely sympathize with your concern about extreme language. It is, after all, the #1 killer of RC wrong answers.

But even if we can't fully prove the author is 'convinced' of what (C) says, we can certainly support what (C) says more than we can any other choice, and sometimes that's gotta be our standard for picking the correct answer.

=== other answers ===
(A) there's no support for this prediction, and the author seemingly wouldn't FEAR it, since he believes that bipolar systems can be just as stable as, if not more stable than, multipolar systems.

(B) this sounds more like paragraph 2, like what the "traditional assumptions" would believe. But not our author, he's about calling into question this traditional notion.

(D) there's no support for "regretful" or "ambivalent".

(E) there's no support for any prediction about European multipolarity returning to prominence for a long period.

Hope this helps.

[joseph.carroll.555]

Beautiful explanation. I really appreciate it, thanks.