PT3.S2.Q25 - the public in the united states

NotMyName

I can't see why E is a better AC that D. Any thoughts?

Flaw

Argument Summary:
Context: The presence of X has conditioned the US to support a substantial defense budget.
Premise 1: X is gone.
Conclusion: Doubtful that the public will support an adequate defense budget.

Prephrase:
X-->Y

/X

/Z

Huh? What is an “adequate” budget in the absence of X? That is the issue here.

Answer Choices:
A) No it definitely does not. It does just the opposite and presume the public cannot be manipulated in the absence of X. Eliminate.

B ) Well it does do this but that is not the flaw. The issue lies in term “adequate”. Eliminate.

C) He uses the descriptor “doubtful”. Definitely not it. This is confusing because it’s hard to understand. But it is false and not the flaw. Eliminate.

D) Well yea it does do this. The argument concludes /Z, but provides no support for that in the argument.

E) Yes it does this too. What the hell does “adequate” even mean?

akistotle

P: The public was conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of the conflicts in the Eastern bloc.
P: The threat of the conflicts in the Eastern bloc is disappearing.
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
C: The public will probably not support an adequate budget.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a conditional relationship between "public supporting a substantial defense budget" and "the threat of the Eastern bloc". I think "conditioned to support something by..." means that they were influenced by .... to support something.

So it would be something like:
The threat of the conflicts in the Eastern bloc ==cause==> Support for a substantial defense budget

As for (D), I don't think the argument does not give "any reasons." It does provide reasons. But there is a jump between "a substantial defense budget" and "an adequate budget."

Even if the conclusion said "a substantial defense budget," it is still flawed because there may be other things that cause the public to support "a substantial defense budget."

NotMyName

You're right; there is no conditional logic. I just use it as shorthand sometimes because it portrays the structure very well, but i understand there is no conditional relationship between these things. when i read my notes as they are typed in the original comment, i interpret them the same way as you have described them (as providing support rather than universal conditionality).

As for (D), I don't think the argument does not give "any reasons." It does provide reasons. But there is a jump between "a substantial defense budget" and "an adequate budget."

How does the argument provide (weak) support for "adequate" defense budget? I see it provides weak support for "substantial" but adequate is a wholly new term introduced in the conclusion. Because of this, D and E seem like 2 sides of the same coin. How can a premise offer support to a term it does not deal with? And since this term is undefined, we must know what it means before we can evaluate the argument.

Even if the conclusion said "a substantial defense budget," it is still flawed because there may be other things that cause the public to support "a substantial defense budget."

Yes! i absolutely agree with you here. In fact, that would make this question much easier and more cookie-cutter.

akistotle

@jkatz1488 said:

As for (D), I don't think the argument does not give "any reasons." It does provide reasons. But there is a jump between "a substantial defense budget" and "an adequate budget."

How does the argument provide (weak) support for "adequate" defense budget? I see it provides weak support for "substantial" but adequate is a wholly new term introduced in the conclusion. Because of this, D and E seem like 2 sides of the same coin. How can a premise offer support to a term it does not deal with? And since this term is undefined, we must know what it means before we can evaluate the argument.

I think "not giving any reasons" is like this (I just made this up):

John: Timmy argues that Ample Hills Creamery is the best ice cream store in Brooklyn because it uses the best strawberries. But clearly his reasoning is flawed. Thus, Ample Hills Creamery is not the best ice cream store in Brooklyn.

John does not give any reasons for his conclusion ("Ample Hills Creamery is not the best ice cream store in Brooklyn.") He just rejected someone else's argument, but he did not give any reasons.

But in PT3.S2.Q25, this author gives some reasons for her/his judgement. However flawed the argument is, she/he still provided the reason.

NotMyName

Ah I see what you are saying. I confused "provide reasons" with "provide support". The author does make an argument in that he has stated a premise and a conclusion which he believes that premise supports (eliminating D). But there is little (i think no) support for it. My error was in seeing it qualitatively.

I actually chose E, myself. But I couldn't quite pin down why D was definitely wrong. Thanks for your help @akistotle

akistotle

@jkatz1488 said:
Ah I see what you are saying. I confused "provide reasons" with "provide support". The author does make an argument in that he has stated a premise and a conclusion which he believes that premise supports (eliminating D). But there is little (i think no) support for it. My error was in seeing it qualitatively.

I actually chose E, myself. But I couldn't quite pin down why D was definitely wrong. Thanks for your help @akistotle

Exactly. (D) is not saying that "the premises do not support the conclusion." If it said so, (D) is also the correct answer. But we know this argument is flawed so it would be too easy.