Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 23

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Countries have stockpiled weapons ahead of every recent major war, so preventing the stockpiling of weapons will prevent war.

Answer Anticipation:
Note how we slightly rephrased the conclusion to include the same concepts while matching better with the premises. This will allow us to see the gap easier.

That said, there is one small shift—the premise is about major wars, and the conclusion is about all war (preserving peace doesn't mean just stopping major conflicts). That's a flaw in the argument that the correct answer could address.

Also, here, the Diplomat establishes a 1:1 correlation in the premise—war has always been preceded by a stockpiling of weapons. From that she concludes that removing that preceding action (weapons stockpiling) will prevent the following action (war).

That's a big jump, though. As an analogy, we have brushed our teeth every night for the past few decades before falling asleep. That doesn't mean we can avoid falling asleep by skipping the tooth brushing.

Let's find an answer that states just because an event always precedes another doesn't mean that getting rid of the former will prevent the latter. This is a type of illegal negation, so any answer in that vein will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer correctly describes the faulty reasoning in the stimulus. The Diplomat does conclude from a claim that weapons stockpiling has for 200 years consistently preceded war that war won't occur unless weapons stockpiling happens—or, in other words, preventing weapons stockpiling (arms control agreements) will prevent war (preserve peace).

Key Takeaway:
While you need to be careful not to change the meaning, don't shy away from rephrasing the conclusion to match up better with the phrasing in the premises. It can make it a lot easier to track what concepts line up.

Incorrect. First, the Diplomat doesn't rely on weapons being used in war as a justification for its conclusion. Second, she states only that this stockpiling has preceded every war for the past 200 years, which is less than always."

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, but the conclusion and premises are different here, and so it doesn't apply.

Incorrect. Why the stockpiling happens is irrelevant to the argument, as the correlation between the stockpiling and war is what's important. No matter what the reasons for the stockpiling, if it guarantees and is necessary for a war, then the argument can still hold together.

Incorrect. This answer would align with the argument, so it's not something that the argument fails to consider. If anything, the argument assumes that what is true of major conflicts is also true of minor conflicts.