LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 2007

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:13

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT124 S2 Q23	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 81% 164 B 9% 154 C 1% 153 D 7% 156 E 2% 153	142 150 158	+Medium	145.571 +SubsectionMedium

Diplomat: 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. Clearly, therefore, arms control agreements will preserve peace.

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.

The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs.

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.

The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war.

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.

The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion.

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.

The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations.

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.

The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars.

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.

LSAT 124 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 124 - Section 2 - Question 23

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 124 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel