Diplomat: Every major war in

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct73% picked this

   The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type,

   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.

   73%
2. B

   Opposite Logic10% picked this

   The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons

   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%
3. C

   Not Circular1% picked this

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

   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%
4. D

   Not an Objection12% picked this

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

   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%
5. E

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by

   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%