PT3.S2.Q25 - The public in the United States

westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
edited November 2016 in Logical Reasoning 3788 karma
For this question, I was able to see that the flaw was a equivocation between a substantial budget and an adequate one. Answer choice E seemed to reflect that train of thought, but I didn't find the wording to be clear. In particular, the answer choice mentions that the meaning of "adequate" needs to be reevaluated in the new context. Wasn't the word adequate brought up only in the conclusion? Where has the stimulus evaluated the use of adequate prior to the conclusion? Additionally, would the "new context" be the during the dissolving of the Soviet threat of confrontation?

Comments

  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    bump
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    anyone??
  • Stevie CStevie C Alum Member
    645 karma
    Is there a link to the question?
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    https://7sage.com/question-bank/?section_type_id=1&preptest_type=clean

    It's under the question bank, under flaw-descriptive weakening. Click on the Preptests 1-16 button and the difficulty button to arrange the questions from the most difficult to the least and it should be one of the top 10 questions or so that show up.
  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    edited November 2016 27899 karma
    That's a really interesting question @westcoastbestcoast .

    So first, you're correct in identifying the disconnect between the terms "substantial" and "adequate," as the problem; and the new context is referring to the newly emerging post cold war era.

    So why would the definition of "adequate" which is relative, need to be reevaluated? I think maybe the idea is that the argument actually leaves the term undefined as it relates to "substantial." So if we think of this like a PSA question or something, we'd need something to the effect of, "despite the new context of world affairs, any defense budget that will be adequate will still remain quite substantial." So, that assumption in a sense, defines adequate within the new context. If the vulnerability is the absence of that assumption, then that's where that comes from.

    Does this make any kind of sense? To be honest, I'm not entirely sure on this one. What do you think?
  • westcoastbestcoastwestcoastbestcoast Alum Member
    3788 karma
    Hey @"Cant Get Right". Thank you for the response. That does make sense to me; your explanation is in line of how I was originally thinking about the problem. After revisiting the question, I realize that adequate is by its nature a contextual word. The author, in his conclusion, originally thought that it was a good idea to draw an assumption between substantial and adequate. Even if we grant that it was relevant to make that assumption during the Soviet era in the old context, the author would need to reevaluate his assumption and his definition of "adequate" in the new context of the Post Cold War era, because the US may not need a substantial budget for it to be adequate.

    Also in spotting the equivocation, I saw this argument as having a causal premise that links the Soviet threat to the public being conditioned into supporting a substantial military budget. The conclusion attempts to show a situation where the cause doesn't exist (soviet threat dissovlving) and therefore the effect doesn't either, but conflates the terms "adequate" and "substantial" in doing so.

    Hopefully more people could also weigh in on this question.
Sign In or Register to comment.