Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40

Question

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

(A) is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position

(B) offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries

(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available

(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H

(E) does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

(A) is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position

Incorrect.

This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1, 2, and 3 are premises, citing facts. The last sentence makes a recommendation (notice the word should) so it's the conclusion:

Premise A: Country G and Country H have been in a cold war for almost 40 years
 +
Premise B: the media has shown that many people believe that Country H has hostile intentions towards Country G
 +
Premise C: Country H manufactures weapons and military equipment
 ≠
Conclusion: Country H will surely attack Country G, so Country G should attack first to reduce the number of people killed

In actual fact, a conclusion often favors one side of the argument that it is presenting. If it is supported by the premises, a conclusion can favor a certain position without the argument being considered flawed. Therefore, this answer choice does not represent the mistake in the author's logic.

(B) offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries

Incorrect.

An analogy compares two situations with similar characteristics. The argument does not contain any analogies, accurate or not.

(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available

The author's conclusion presents only two options: attack now, or be attacked. Based on the premises, this lack of options cannot be supported. How does the author know that Country H will definitely attack? Is a military attack Country G's best strategy? The author oversimplifies the situation without logically eliminating other possible plans of action.

(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H

Incorrect.

This is an Argument Flaw question. You are required to locate the inherent flaw in the argument's conclusion or its underlying assumption. In this argument, sentences 1, 2, and 3 are premises, citing facts. The last sentence makes a recommendation (notice the word should) so it's the conclusion:

Premise A: Country G and Country H have been in a cold war for almost 40 years
 +
Premise B: the media has shown that many people believe that Country H has hostile intentions towards Country G
 +
Premise C: Country H manufactures weapons and military equipment
 ≠
Conclusion: Country H will surely attack Country G, so Country G should attack first to reduce the number of people killed

The first premise in the argument is about the cold war between Country G and Country H so military and political tension between two countries is not assumed - it's a fact.

(E) does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus

Incorrect.

The statement about Country H's weapons production is a premise. Therefore, it must be considered to be true without the need of further evidence.

sumitkrocks · Answer

(A) is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position
We can't infer whether author is in favor of any one side- eliminate

(B) offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries
Is there any analogy? the Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and has malevolent towards country G are facts.
Eliminate

(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available
Could be true as attack is certainly not a good solution based on my personal opinion; not mentioned in the argument 
this option has "there are available"/ I do not get much clue of such available option from the argument though

(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H
Why would author do that; we believe what facts author presents are correct; however, conclusion derived from the facts could be wrong .
 
(E) does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus
Is there a need to present evidence;

Argument looks like seriously flawed and I would choose option (C) with no much confidence

ueh55406 · Answer

Not a good question, IMO.

Could be C, could be E. even D, because all we know G has hostile attitude and malevolent intention regarding Country, H. This does not mean G is going to act on it.

Overall, not convinced.

mSKR · Answer

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

Conclsuion: Country G should attack Country H now or face more deaths later/
Why need to assume such?

The argument is flawed primarily because the author

(A) is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position
what is one side of the argument? ==> attack 
but i can't see two sides of argument. 
Reject

(B) offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries
Reject: inaccurate analagoy is not to explain the circumstances. conclusion is more based on tension between these countries.

(E) does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus
reject: providing evidence would not affect the conclusion .

Between C vs E:
(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available
Reject: i am not clear what false dilemma ? who can say it is false or truth? what are paths of action?\

(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H
Why author believes that G country should attack H. He moved to conclusion with a big assumption gap.

I can't think of other suitable option except D
 I would mark D as the answer.

kantapong · Answer

C: Country G should attack H now!
E: Military tension, surplus, ...
Flaw: The fact that H has military surplus ... does not necessarily imply that H will attack G soon (maybe attack country Z?)

Between C and D:
(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available (Yes, maybe H attacks other countries that are not G)
(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H (there is existence of tension from the prompt, this is not the flaw)

Ans: C

anirudhraj · Answer

I would choose E because the argument tells that Country H manufactures weapons, and assumes that these weapons would most definitely be used by Country H to fight Country G. What if these weapons are being exported to another country?

IanStewart · Answer

I don't think it's an airtight question (and I don't understand why it uses a kind of subjunctive construction in the last sentence of the stem), but the only answer that seems justifiable to me is C. We can't dispute premises of arguments -- if we're looking for a flaw in an argument, we're looking for a logical flaw. That there is political tension between G and H is a premise. That H produces military equipment is also a premise. So D and E are not correct. I don't see an analogy anywhere, so B is out, and while it's true the author favours one position (the author takes a position; naturally he or she favours it), that's not, in itself, a logical flaw; you can favour a position because that position is correct.

C is a good answer here though, because the argument describes how H poses a threat to G, and proposes that G attack H. The author is ignoring other possible resolutions to the threat -- maybe a diplomatic solution is available, or maybe encouraging the international community to impose economic sanctions on H could defuse the threat, or maybe if G unilaterally disarms H will do the same, among many other possibilities.

C is a good answer here though, because the argument describes how H poses a threat to G, and proposes that G attack H. The author is ignoring other possible resolutions to the threat -- maybe a diplomatic solution is available, or maybe encouraging the international community to impose economic sanctions on H could defuse the threat, or maybe if G unilaterally disarms H will do the same, among many other possibilities.

shruti268 · Answer

The author explicitly suggests(based on his research) that G should launch an attack on H and conveys this as the one and only option. The Question asks why the argument is flawed. We are required to cast a doubt on the opinion expressed by the author. 
So IMO option C   best serves the purpose.

swim2109 · Answer

IMO the answer should be C.

(A) is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position------> It doesnt take favor of any sides

(B) offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries---> No analogy as such presented.

(C) creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available---> Keep it. It does present that there is only one path of attacking and there is surety of an attack from Country H. If it has been going on for 40 years, how does it imply that there is going to be an attack from H. It could also diplomatically attack by sanctions etc...

(D) assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H----->Military/political tensions are there. They are engaged in Cold war (what else is tension then?!?)

(E) does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus-----> why does it have to provide surplus? Irrelevant

Sumi1010 · Answer

Premises :  Media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G..Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment. 
 Conclusion :  Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later.

Prethink: 
The conclusion resides on the assumptions that are  mere binaries  - either "this" or "that" i.e. either attack now Or get attacked later. 
There can be other options too such as : 
 1.Befriend with H and "survive" together. 
2. H manufactures the military equipments maybe to export and not to attack.
3. If G can't manufactures the military equipments, it still can be import them.

A flaw is inherent loophole in the assumption e.g. thinking on only  binaries  of assumptions. Only choice C talks about this loophole.

Hence , Choice  C.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40

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

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40

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