PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 23
Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200(32 more words not shown)
Of the following, which one(10 more words not shown)
- AThe argument infers,(39 more words not shown)
- BThe argument reasons(22 more words not shown)
- CThe argument draws(13 more words not shown)
- DThe argument fails(26 more words not shown)
- EThe argument fails(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't the countries fight with the weapons they already have?
The historical pattern is clear: before each major war in this period, the eventual participants sharply increased their weapons. But perhaps they acquired those weapons because they already intended to fight. Preventing extra purchases wouldn't necessarily remove that intention. They might go to war without the usual buildup.
There's another question too: would an arms control agreement actually stop countries from acquiring weapons? Signing an agreement and following it aren't the same. Even if we grant that the agreement works, though, we still need a reason to think a new buildup is required for war.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question could address either concern. The central unsupported move is from a sequence that has consistently happened to a sequence that must happen. If the buildup isn't required, preventing it doesn't guarantee peace.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Put the concrete events into this abstract wording. Events of the first type are sharp increases in weapons acquisition. Events of the second type are wars. The evidence says the first has consistently come before the second during the period described.
The conclusion treats the first as something the second cannot happen without. That's why the diplomat thinks controlling the buildup will preserve peace. But a country could fight using existing weapons. The past sequence hasn't established that new acquisition is an unavoidable step.
- B
This says a buildup always produces war. The diplomat's conclusion depends instead on treating a buildup as required for war: stop the buildup, and war cannot occur. A requirement needn't be a guarantee. Some countries could increase their weapons without fighting, and that would not address the particular inference the diplomat makes.
- C
The conclusion introduces arms control agreements and their predicted success at preserving peace. The evidence gives a historical pattern of weapons acquisition before war. Those are different claims. The problem is the unsupported move between them, not simply repeating the conclusion as its own support.
- D
Why a country increases its weapons doesn't settle whether preventing that increase would prevent war. The country could be responding to its neighbors, and the diplomat's proposed connection could still be right or wrong. D doesn't establish the missing point: that war can occur without the buildup.
- E
Finding the same buildup pattern before some minor wars would add examples of the pattern. It would not expose the problem with treating that pattern as unavoidable. Also, the conclusion concerns preserving peace generally, so minor wars aren't automatically irrelevant. This particular possibility simply doesn't challenge the inference.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.