- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:28 pm
#23151
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument describes the fact that in the past, the US public has been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by pointing to the threat of the Eastern bloc. Nowadays, the threat is disappearing. Thus, the argument concludes, it is doubtful that the public would support an adequate defense budget. Close reading of the argument would reveal that in just a few lines, it shifts from describing a substantial defense budget to an adequate one.
Answer choice (A) The argument makes no such presupposition. There is no mention of the manipulation of the public—only its conditioning, which does not necessarily amount to manipulation.
Answer choice (B) Actually, the argument makes it explicitly clear that the past support for a substantial defense budget was made possible by the threat of the Eastern bloc.
Answer choice (C) The argument does not employ circular reasoning, which would require that the premise and conclusion be logically equivalent. There is definitely an argument (or an attempt at one).
Answer choice (D) Actually, the argument cites the dissolution of the Eastern bloc as support for its conclusion. Unfortunately, the conclusion is unwarranted. But this does not mean that the argument fails to provide any support for its conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument seems to suggest that the public would no longer support a substantial defense budget, because the Eastern bloc is dissolving. However, it concludes that the public would no longer support an adequate defense budget either. Thus, the argument relies on the term adequate, which requires reevaluation in the new context after the dissolution of the Eastern bloc.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument describes the fact that in the past, the US public has been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by pointing to the threat of the Eastern bloc. Nowadays, the threat is disappearing. Thus, the argument concludes, it is doubtful that the public would support an adequate defense budget. Close reading of the argument would reveal that in just a few lines, it shifts from describing a substantial defense budget to an adequate one.
Answer choice (A) The argument makes no such presupposition. There is no mention of the manipulation of the public—only its conditioning, which does not necessarily amount to manipulation.
Answer choice (B) Actually, the argument makes it explicitly clear that the past support for a substantial defense budget was made possible by the threat of the Eastern bloc.
Answer choice (C) The argument does not employ circular reasoning, which would require that the premise and conclusion be logically equivalent. There is definitely an argument (or an attempt at one).
Answer choice (D) Actually, the argument cites the dissolution of the Eastern bloc as support for its conclusion. Unfortunately, the conclusion is unwarranted. But this does not mean that the argument fails to provide any support for its conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument seems to suggest that the public would no longer support a substantial defense budget, because the Eastern bloc is dissolving. However, it concludes that the public would no longer support an adequate defense budget either. Thus, the argument relies on the term adequate, which requires reevaluation in the new context after the dissolution of the Eastern bloc.