It has recently been proposed that we adopt an all-volunteer army.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

It has recently been proposed that we adopt an all-volunteer army. This policy was tried on a limited basis several years ago and was a miserable failure. The level of education of the volunteers was unacceptably low, while levels of drug use and crime soared among army personnel. Can we trust our national defense to a volunteer army? The answer is clearly “No.”

Which of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the author’s claim that an all-volunteer army should not be implemented?

You know from reading the question first that you’re expected to fix a flaw in the argument. Even better, the question itself tells you the conclusion of the passage: “An all-volunteer army should not be implemented.”

Because the reasoning in a strengthen-the-argument question is going to contain gaps, it pays to see whether the argument is statistical, causal, or analogous. You may have noticed that the argument does, in fact, use an analogy. The author bases his conclusion on the results of one previous experience. In effect he says, “The idea didn’t work then, so it won’t work now.” This is the potential flaw in the argument.

If you didn’t spot the argument by analogy, don’t worry. You would probably have seen it when you started attacking the answer choices:


A. The general level of education has risen since the first time an all-volunteer army was tried.

Does this support the author’s conclusion? Actually, it may weaken the conclusion. If the general level of education has risen, it could be argued that the level of education of army volunteers is also higher. This would remove one of the author’s objections to a volunteer army. Eliminate it.


B. The proposal was made by an organization called Citizens for Peace.

This is irrelevant to the author’s conclusion. You might have wondered whether a group called “Citizens for Peace” was the right organization to make suggestions about the army. Attacking the reputation of a person in order to cast doubt on that person’s ideas is a very old pastime. There’s even a name for it: an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem statement does not strengthen an argument. Eliminate it.


C. The first attempt to create a volunteer army was carried out according to the same plan now under proposal and under the same conditions as those that exist today.

This is the best answer. The passage as it stands is potentially flawed because we cannot know that a new attempt to institute an all-volunteer army would turn out the same way it did before. This answer choice provides new information that suggests that the two situations are analogous.


D. A volunteer army would be less expensive than an army that relies on the draft.

Does this support the conclusion? No. In fact, it makes a case for a volunteer army. Eliminate it.


E. The size of the army needed today is smaller than that needed when a volunteer army was first tried.

Like answer choice D, this answer contradicts the conclusion of the passage. If we need a smaller army today, maybe we would be able to find enough smart and honest volunteers to make a volunteer army work. Eliminate it.