Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S2 · Q23 Diplomat: Every major war in

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

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.

Conclusion

Arms control agreements will preserve peace

Evidence

Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by an abrupt uptick in weapons acquisition by the eventual warring nations.

Evaluation

This seems to hint at several famous flaws. There is Conditional Logic, triggered by "every", so we might be looking out for Necessary vs. Sufficient: big war past 200yrs → preceded by arms buildup

The author's reasoning isn't messing up the conditional logic, since it's trying to reason through the contrapositive: no arms buildup → no war (arms control → peace)

The problem is really a Temporal Flaw, where the author assumes that what was true in the past will be true in the future. Or we could say that this is a Causal Flaw, in that the author seems to be thinking that since an arms buildup came before each war, the arms buildup caused the war. Thus, in her mind, if we get rid of the arms buildup, we get rid of the cause of major wars.

Goal

Look for an answer describing the Temporal or Causal assumption the author is making.

23.

Of the following, which one most accurately describes a reasoning flaw in the diplomat's argument?

  1. Correct

    The argument infers, merely from

    Why this is right

    Events of one type (arms buildup) have for a long time (the last 200 yrs) preceded events of a second type (major war). The author infers that the second type (war) won't happen if we don't see the first type (arms buildup) occurring. Arms control would prevent the arms buildup, which the author then assumes would prevent the major war from occurring.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

  2. The argument reasons that, simply

    Opposite Logic

    The author is concluding that no arms buildup ? no war but this answer accuses her of thinking that arms buildup ? war She thinks that preventing a rapid increase in weapons acquisition will keep us from going into war, but she isn't committed to thinking that every single increase in weapons acquisition will lead to war. If an arms buildup didn't lead to war, it wouldn't hurt her argument. We can only hurt her conclusion if there is arms control (no arms buildup) but it does still lead to war.

    10% picked this

  3. The argument draws a conclusion

    Not Circular

    The conclusion is definitely not a restatement, since the premises never mentioned "arms control agreements" at all. This answer describes the famous flaw Circular Reasoning, which will almost always be a wrong answer choice.

    1% picked this

  4. The argument fails to consider

    Not an Objection

    It wouldn't hurt the author's argument to point out that for some nations, the arms buildup is in reaction to a perceived threat from a neighboring country that is acquiring more arms. Our author isn't blaming all countries that build up arms equally. Maybe some are instigators and some just react defensively. Her point remains: if we could prevent these weapons buildups, maybe we could stop the eventual war from occurring.

    12% picked this

  5. The argument fails to consider

    Not an Objection

    Her premise talks about major wars, whereas her conclusion seems to refer to all wars. It might be possible for us to object to the argument by saying, "Hey, author, even if you fix that problem that you think led to major wars, there still might no be peace — after all, maybe minor wars are caused by something else." This answer choice, though, is making it seem like the same thing the author is targeting for major wars is also associated with minor wars. This strengthens the author's argument, by making minor and major wars seem more fair to compare.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free