If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because

Question

If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because it creates instability in the region, then all foreign aid must be stopped.

Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?

(A) If a war in Central America is to be condemned because all killing is immoral, then all war must be condemned.
(B) If charitable donations are obligatory for those who are rich, then it is certain that the poor will be provided for.
(C) If the fascist government in Chile is to be overthrown because it violates the rights of the people, then all government must be overthrown.
(D) If a proposed weapons system is to be rejected because there are insufficient funds to pay for it, then the system must be purchased when the funds are available.
(E) If a sociological theory is widely accepted but later proven wrong by facts, then a new theory should be proposed that takes account of the additional data.

Lucy Phuong · Answer

I chose C. The following is my reasoning. Hope to receive comments, if any, from you guys :-)

If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because it creates instability in the region, then all foreign aid must be stopped. Structure: If a particular type of A gets B because that type makes something, then all types of A get B too. (A) If a war in Central America is to be condemned because all killing is immoral, then all war must be condemned. => Wrong. Reason cited must come from the particular war in CA only, while "all killing" refers to a feature of all. (B) If charitable donations are obligatory for those who are rich, then it is certain that the poor will be provided for. => Wrong. No reason is mentioned. Furthermore, the conclusion should be generalizing all types, rather than switching to a new type - "the poor". (C) If the fascist government in Chile is to be overthrown because it violates the rights of the people, then all government must be overthrown. => CORRECT! It closely follows the above structure (D) If a proposed weapons system is to be rejected because there are insufficient funds to pay for it, then the system must be purchased when the funds are available. => Wrong. This option mentions no generalization, instead, it focuses on "a proposed weapons system". (E) If a sociological theory is widely accepted but later proven wrong by facts, then a new theory should be proposed that takes account of the additional data. => Wrong. No reason is cited.

bschoolboy2017 · Answer

The correct answer is (C). The argument in the question stem commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in two respects. It reasons from military aid to Latin America (a particular type of aid to a certain region) to the general conclusion that all aid must be stopped, regardless of type or of recipient. (C) parallels this. From a particular conclusion about one form of government in one country, it moves to a general conclusion about all government—regardless of form or of society. Although (A), (B), and (D) have superficial similarities of content (war, donation, military), the logical structures of these arguments differ from that of the stem paragraph. (A) is a valid argument: Given anything that is a war, if any war is to be condemned, then all wars are to be condemned. (B) is not a valid argument but a nonsequitur. It does not follow that an obligation on one party guarantees a benefit to any other. For example, there may not be enough rich to provide for all the poor. (D) is also a nonsequitur. That we reject a system now because we lack the money to buy it does not imply we should buy it when we have funds. Finally, (E) is not really an argument but only a statement. Not all “If . . . , then . . . .” statements mean “P, therefore Q.” For example, “If you do not do the assignment, you will fail the course” is not an argument with a premise and a conclusion but a single statement that describes a causal relation.

SoulSurfer · Answer

i came down to A and C and finally ticked A but found out that A is wrong. following is my reasoning.

the argument says that since military aid in LA creates instability in CA, all types of foreign aid (to LA) must be stopped - may be because all types of aid would be creating instability in region.

A- in CA a war is to be condemned because all killing is immoral. then all war must be condemned. - because someone or the other dies in every war. the reasoning is in alignment with the argument.
C-is wrong because chile cant have more than one type of govt. and this option is against only fascist government. all govt cant be fascist there can be some democratic govt, some communist govt... so this is not aligned with the argument structure.

Experts please correct me if i am wrong

Anshika.g · Answer

KarishmaB 
Requesting your help to explain this and in general how to approach "Similar Reasoning" Question. I always get these wrong.
There is no information I could find, which explains how to approach these questions and I got a similar Q in my actual exam.

KarishmaB · Answer

In my upcoming webinar on Wednesday, I will be taking Mimic questions. You can join me through the free Trial.

As for this question, focus on the logic of the given argument:

If   military aid   to Latin American countries is to be stopped because it creates instability in the region, then   all foreign aid   must be stopped.

The logic is flawed. The author says that if military aid is stopped because it causes instability, then all aid must be stopped. But all aid may not be causing instability. For example financial aid to support education in a country may not cause instability.

(A) If a war in Central America is to be condemned because all killing is immoral, then all war must be condemned.

This is valid. If a war is condemned because killing is immoral, then all war must be condemned. That cause because of which it is condemned is common to all wars after all.

(B) If charitable donations are obligatory for those who are rich, then it is certain that the poor will be provided for.

No relevance to our original argument.

(C) If the fascist government in Chile is to be overthrown because it violates the rights of the people, then all government must be overthrown.

If the fascist governement is to be overthrown because it violates rights, then all governments must be overthrown is logic similar to our original argument. It is flawed in a similar manner. All governments may not be violating the rights of people. The cause may not be applicable to all governments. So the logic is flawed in much the same way.

Correct.

(D) If a proposed weapons system is to be rejected because there are insufficient funds to pay for it, then the system must be purchased when the funds are available.

Again, no relevance to our original argument. It needed to be something like:
If a proposed weapons system is to be rejected because there are insufficient funds to pay for it, then all proposed systems must be rejected.

(E) If a sociological theory is widely accepted but later proven wrong by facts, then a new theory should be proposed that takes account of the additional data.

No relevance to our original argument.

Answer (C)

If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards