Q25 - The public in the United States

[b91302310]

I could eliminate (A), (B),(C) and (D) but not quite sure about (E). For (E), does it mean we cannot know what is adquate since there is no new evidence for us to judge?

Could anyone help?

Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

The argument core looks like this:

Premise: The public has been conditioned in the past to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of the Eastern bloc.

Premise: That threat is going away.

---> Conclusion: It is doubtful whether the public will support an adequate budget.

The bold-faced words are the key to spotting the gap in this argument. The premise talks about conditioning the public to support a substantial budget, but the conclusion talks about an adequate budget! Are those the same? We don't know! This kind of term shift can be sneaky, and is one reason why it's so important to picture the argument core in our heads.

So, (E) is correct, although it's worded pretty bizarrely. The precise meaning of the term "adequate" requires reevaluation in the new context because it wasn't mentioned in the old context, i.e., the premises. Specifically, it would need to be determined whether "adequate" and "substantial" are equivalent.

(A) is out of scope, because the public's awareness of the manipulation is irrelevant, and it's also somewhat contradictory, because the argument is explicitly about the end of the manipulation.

(B) is incorrect because, according to the argument, there is a causal connection.

(C) just doesn't happen. The conclusion is meant to follow from the premises.

(D) is wrong for the exact same reason. Flawed though it may be, the argument does base its conclusion on premises, i.e., reasons.

Does that answer your question?

[b91302310]

Yes,it's very clear . Thanks again!

[mkhan189]

Thank you for the explanation!

But I still have some questions about the argument:
If "adequate"="substantial" would the argument be valid? And also, is the premise in the argument saying that there is a cause and effect b/w the conditioning and support (conditioning caused support)?

I appreciate anyone that can help, thanks!

[WaltGrace1983]

Thank you for the explanation!

But I still have some questions about the argument:
If "adequate"="substantial" would the argument be valid? And also, is the premise in the argument saying that there is a cause and effect b/w the conditioning and support (conditioning caused support)?

I appreciate anyone that can help, thanks!

If I am wrong let me know but I think the argument would still be flawed even if the conclusion swapped the word "adequate" for "substantial." Why? Just because the threat of confrontation was sufficient to warrant support for a substantial defense budget does not mean that it is necessary. You may see the argument kind of like this:

Threat of confrontation → Conditioned to support substantial defense budget

~Threat of confrontation does not mean ~Conditioned to support substantial defense budget. Maybe there are still other reasons to be conditioned to support the substantial defense budget.

[uhdang]

Just want to check here, does C) indicate "Circular Reasoning" Flaw?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Just want to check here, does C) indicate "Circular Reasoning" Flaw?

It sure does!

Circular reasoning doesn't show up in actual arguments all that often, for a variety of reasons, but they sure like to throw it in as a wrong answer choice a lot on flaw questions!

Another ways you'll see it phrased are "presupposes the truth of [the conclusion]". Any phrasing that translate to "assumes the conclusion" would qualify as circular.


Also, I know you posted this last year, WaltGrace1983, but your reasoning is spot on!!

If I am wrong let me know but I think the argument would still be flawed even if the conclusion swapped the word "adequate" for "substantial." Why? Just because the threat of confrontation was sufficient to warrant support for a substantial defense budget does not mean that it is necessary. You may see the argument kind of like this:

Threat of confrontation → Conditioned to support substantial defense budget

~Threat of confrontation does not mean ~Conditioned to support substantial defense budget. Maybe there are still other reasons to be conditioned to support the substantial defense budget.

To take it one step further, even if the public ends up 'not conditioned to support', they might still support! It might not be as automatic as when they are "conditioned", but they could potentially still choose to support all manner of defense budget proposals.

I hope this was helpful!