Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by

Question

Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those conflicts. Clearly, therefore, arms control agreements will preserve peace.

Of the following, which one most accurately describes a reasoning flaw in the diplomat’s argument?

(A) The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs.

(B) The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war.

(C) The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion.

(D) The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations.

(E) The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is dumb. This is a correlation-equals-causation argument. The logic here would be just about as good if it had said, “Wars are generally good for the economies of the countries involved, so we can stop wars by trashing the economy.” Another example: “Heroin users generally drink milk when they are babies, so to stop heroin use we should stop giving milk to babies.” Another example: “Ferrari owners tend to be rich, so if you want to be rich you should buy a Ferrari.” Like I said, dumb.

Another major problem here is that arms  agreements  do not necessarily do anything to the actual acquisition of arms. This argument sucks.

A) This seems pretty good. Events of one type (arms purchases) have for a long time (200 years) consistently preceded events of a second type (wars), therefore events of the second type (wars) will not occur unless an event of the first type (arms purchases) occur. I do think the argument made this flaw (past correlation will always hold in the future), and it’s a pretty bad flaw, so I like this answer.

B) No, the argument didn’t say, “Arms will always lead to war.” Rather, the argument said, “War won’t happen without arms.” Those aren’t logically equivalent. This ain’t it.

C) This answer describes circular reasoning. That’s a flaw, but it’s not what happens here.

D) The argument does do this, I suppose, but I’m not sure it’s a devastating flaw. Yes, Pakistan’s proposed arms acquisition is a response to India’s arms acquisition. But that doesn’t mean that stopping Pakistan’s acquisition wouldn’t still stop the war from happening. This is a tricky one, but I like A better.

E)  Minor  wars just aren’t relevant. The argument was about major wars. And anyway, even if minor wars  were  relevant, and it was true that arms purchases tend to spike before minor wars as well, this would only strengthen the argument, not weaken it.

Our answer is A.

100mitra · Answer

Correct option A

Diplomat: 
  Premise   : Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by a short,  sharp increase  in the  acquisition of weapons  by the nations that subsequently became  participants in those conflicts . 
  Conclusion   : Clearly, therefore, arms control agreements will preserve peace

Arguement = Premise + Conclusion

Syllogism : Weapons >> War || No weapons >> No war

flaw in the diplomat’s argument?

(A) The  argument  infers, merely from  the claim  that 
 events of one type  have for a long time consistently preceded  events of a second type , that an 
 event of the second type  will not occur unless an  event of the first type  occurs.
 Correct :  this option indicates, if X occur Y will occur and if Y occur X will also occur, this is a big flaw that diplomat argument has, which challenges the sureity and 100% probability of occurance.

(B) The argument  reasons  that, simply because  weapons are used in war , a rapid, dramatic  increase in the acquisition of weapons  will always lead to war.  - Wrong  : Usage in war and weapon application is not infered or reason in argument

(C) The argument 
 draws  a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in 
 support  of that conclusion.
 Flaw :  - confusing or irrelavant ( draws = support = conclusion)
 
(D) The argument  fails to  consider that a short, sharp increase in the  acquisition of weapons by a nation  may be a response to the  increased armament of neighboring nations .
 Flaw :  wrong comparison

(E) The  argument fails to  consider that  some of the minor wars  that  have occurred  in the last 200 years may have been preceded by  rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons  by the nations that subsequently  became participants in those wars .
 Wrong / Strenghten:  - This is Argument which makes diplomat statement true and strengthen its statement of purpose.

sivatx2 · Answer

all sudden increase in weapons ----> conflicts
Conclusion: control weapons -----> control conflicts

(A) The argument infers, merely from the claim that events of one type have for a long time consistently preceded events of a second type, that an event of the second type will not occur unless an event of the first type occurs. 
 This is true and explains the problem in the reasoning. So the answer choice is A, but let's eliminate other choices.

(B) The argument reasons that, simply because weapons are used in war, a rapid, dramatic increase in the acquisition of weapons will always lead to war. 
 This does not bring out the flaw in the reasoning. Eliminate

(C) The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion. 
 No, there was no restatement in the arguments. Eliminate

(D) The argument fails to consider that a short, sharp increase in the acquisition of weapons by a nation may be a response to the increased armament of neighboring nations. 
 Neighboring nations are irrelevant in the argument. Eliminate

(E) The argument fails to consider that some of the minor wars that have occurred in the last 200 years may have been preceded by rapid increases in the acquisition of weapons by the nations that subsequently became participants in those wars .
 This does not weakens but only strengthens. Eliminate

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.

Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by

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

Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been preceded by

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