In the aftermath of the

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite, if anything4% picked this

   International economic competition is a greater cause of tension than is

   The Cold War is an example of military tension, and during the Cold War, these allied nations overlooked their economic tensions. So it actually sounds more like military tension trumps economic tension.

   4%
2. B

   Wrong Comparison8% picked this

   Bonds between allies are stronger when they derive from fear of a common enemy than when they derive

   We don't have one situation where countries X, Y, and Z feared a common enemy and another situation where they had common economic goals. This answer wants us to compare those two things, but we never talked about those two things. At no point in the story we were told did allied (or previously allied) nations have shared economic goals. During both timeframes, these nations had economic tensions (implying competing economic goals), they just didn't worry about their competing economic goals while they were more worried about their fear of a common enemy.

   8%
3. C

   Out of Scope: fundamental agreement11% picked this

   When there is a military commitment between countries, fundamental agreement between them on economic matters

   During the Cold War, these nations may have had a military commitment (they were allies, so that seems pretty fair to assume). Were we told during the Cold War that these nations reached a fundamental agreement on economic matters? No. It sounds like maybe they set aside economic matters, while they were worried about a common enemy. We'd have an easier time supporting an answer that says, When a military commitment between countries ends, fundamental disagreements between them on economic matters are more likely to resurface.

   11%
4. D

   Too Strong5% picked this

   Economic matters are considered unimportant during periods of actual or

   Too Strong: unimportant Too Broad: actual or threatened war This is fairly close to the story. The Cold War was a time of threatened war (between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R). And we know that following the Cold War these former allies had to talk about economics delicately in order not to arouse tensions that had been overlooked. But it's an incredibly strong, sweeping claim to say that in a period of actual ? all economic matters or threatened war are unimportant We need something much more limited in scope and strength, in a period of actual ? econ tensions w/ allies or threatened war can be overlooked

   5%
5. E

   Correct71% picked this

   A common enemy contributes to a strengthened bond between nations, enabling them to ignore economic tensions that

   Why this is right

   During the Cold War, the allies had a common enemy (that's inherent in the definition of being allies in a war). International relations between these countries were easier during the war, then after, so the war seems to have contributed to a strengthened bond. After the war, leaders had to be very delicate in returning to economic negotiations, because the underlying tensions were a powder keg that had been overlooked for the sake of being allies. So being allies in the Cold War enabled these nations to "overlook tensions". The context of the final sentence implies that these tensions were economic in nature, because it's saying "economic negotiations had to be conducted tactfully in order not to arouse tensions".

   Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%