Self-study
Diplomat: Support Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those conflicts. ████████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The diplomat concludes that arms control agreements will preserve peace. She supports this by saying that every major war in the last 200 years was preceded by a rapid increase in weapons acquisition by the countries involved.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The diplomat argues that arms control agreements will stop major wars. She assumes that a war won't happen unless there’s rapid increase in weapon acquisition, just because every major war in the last 200 years followed this pattern. But past events don't guarantee future outcomes.
23.
Of the following, which one ████ ██████████ █████████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
a
The argument infers, ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ █ ████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████
She infers, merely from the claim that increases in weapon acquisition have consistently preceded major wars, that major wars will not occur unless increases in weapon acquisition occur. But just because things happened this way in the past doesn’t mean they will in the future.
b
The argument reasons █████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ████ █ ██████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████
The diplomat never claims that we can’t have increases in weapons acquisition without subsequent wars. She claims that we can’t have wars without preceding increases in weapons acquisition.
c
The argument draws █ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████████ █ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is a restatement of a premise. The diplomat doesn’t make this mistake; her premise and conclusion are distinct.
d
The argument fails ██ ████████ ████ █ ██████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ████████
The diplomat doesn’t mention this, but it isn’t a flaw in her argument. She’s arguing that arms control agreements will stop wars. Whether increases in weapon acquisition are a response to the armament of other nations is irrelevant because those increases may still precede wars.
e
The argument fails ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████████████ ██████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████
The diplomat doesn’t mention minor wars but, if anything, (E) would strengthen her argument. She’s focused on the connection between major wars and weapons acquisition, but if minor wars are also preceded by weapons acquisition, this further supports her argument.