Question

The conclusion of the argument is that the "extreme view that society could flourish in a condition of anarchy" "deserves no further attention." Why? The argument first defines anarchy as "the absence of government." Then, the author points to the fact that the theorist's holding this "extreme view" have ignored "the fundamental principle of social philosophy - that an acceptable philosophy must promote peace and order." Thus, a social philosophy that countenances (i.e. that allows) chaos, i.e., anarchy, accordingly deserves no further attention. So in this second instance, the author has defined anarchy as a social philosophy that countenances chaos, but we have been given no information as to why or how anarchy countenances chaos. So answer choice (A) is correct because the meaning of a key term, i.e. anarchy, shifts "illicitly during the course of the argument" from just "the absence of government" to "a social philosophy that countenances chaos." Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

I always get this type of flaw wrong how can I better recognize that this flaw is occurring?