Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that society could flour

Since chaos and peace&order are not the same. Hence IMO option A makes sense.
If there is peace and order with chaos, then you should have a look at anarchy.

Correct option A.

Regards

Here is how i solved this..
A: Sounds like a non answer option. Keep it for now
B:This is the opposite of what the statement says. sure reject
C:Out of scope. sure reject
D:Not relevant. Here we need to somehow say that anarchy should not be rejected or anarchy also promotes peace and order. Keep it for now
E: Would have been a good option had it stated that the anarchy was rejected based on its extreme laissez faire strategy. In the statement anarchy is rejected because of the chaotic countenances. sure reject
Then on re-reading the question statement...
anarchy=laissez faire taken to extreme
anarchy= any philosophy that countenances chaos

Best bet option A. I was not sure

I think the answer is (A).

If you read the first sentence, it defines anarchy as the absence of government, the base meaning of the term. However, there is a logical shift towards the end of the passage where Bowers inexplicitly re-defines the term - 'A social philosophy that countenances chaos, i.e., Anarchy'. Basically, it equates the absence of government with inevitable chaos, which is a problematic assumption / logical leap.

I agree completely with GMATGuru's analysis above (and it's the only post in the thread so far that correctly identifies the specific "shift" of meaning in the passage). I imagine anyone who knows political philosophy would find this question easy; "anarchism" in political philosophy rejects hierarchical government, but it doesn't reject organization of other kinds. So it's not synonymous with "chaos" in any sense, but that's the synonym the author incorrectly uses to make their argument.

I'd disagree with Guru that this issue only rarely shows up on the GMAT, at least how I'd look at it (I'm taking a bit of a wide view of the issue). The LSAT certainly tests this definitional shift error in ways the GMAT never does (the question in this thread is an LSAT-style question, not a GMAT-style one). But I've seen many GMAT CR questions where an argument uses evidence about one thing and incorrectly draws a conclusion about another (related but different) thing -- for example, a question that uses evidence about salmon to draw a conclusion about fish. Often these questions use evidence about one member of a set to draw a conclusion about the set as a whole, which is wrong unless the member is a perfect representative of the set. This is an example from the official VR book of what I mean:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/automobile-d ... -8520.html

Agreed: it is very common for a GMAT argument to exhibit a change in scope between the premise and the conclusion. But the specific type of flaw in the argument above -- where two different dictionary definitions are applied to the same term -- seems far more common on the LSAT than on the GMAT.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.