shrive555 wrote:
A paratrooper, when asked whether he believed the military objective was important, commented: “Well, it sort of commands the valley, so it would be important in a conventional war. But this isn’t a conventional war, so I guess it means nothing.”
The speaker’s conclusion would be most strengthened if it were true that
the speaker is skilled in conventional warfare
commanding a valley is important in unconventional wars
commanding the valley is an objective in the war under discussion
this is an unconventional war
whatever is important in a conventional war is unimportant in an unconventional war
Look at his train of thought:
Premises:
Commands the valley, so important in conventional war.
This is not conventional war.
Conclusion: So not important.
This is not a logical conclusion, right? Something that is important in conventional war could also be important in an unconventional one. What can I do to strengthen this conclusion. Is there a missing premise, which, if added could make this argument logical?
If I were to add a premise here 'what is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one', would the conclusion become valid?
See again:
Premises:
-Commands the valley, so important in conventional war.
-This is not conventional war.
-What is important in a conventional war, is not important in an unconventional one
Conclusion: So not important.
Now it is a valid conclusion. So the argument can be strengthened by adding this premise, this new information. Hence, answer is (E).
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
Veritas Prep Reviews
close
55% (01:39) correct
