I'm no expert, but here's my two cents.

Threat of confrontation with EB --> used to condition public to support SUBSTANTIAL defense budget.
Threat dissolving, along with EB --> Doubtful whether public can be persuaded to support ADEQUATE budget.

What is the FLAW?


A. Whether or not the public is aware of being manipulated is not relevant. We cannot assume that the public would be affected by the knowledge of being manipulated or not. The argument only speaks of the apparent cause-effect between thread of confrontation with EB and their predisposition to support a big budget. IRRELEVANT.

B. There is actually a causal connection here, as you can see in my summary of the argument above. Atleast, there was such a connection in the past. Also, is it really referring to past or present events, or simply a condition that has been a certain way UPTO the present, and makes a prediction for the future?

C. The only fact stated explicitly is the EB threat dissolving. The reasoning is that "it is DOUBTFUL" which means the author does not regard his claim as absolutely true, or as an assumed fact but simply as a prediction.

D. A reason is clearly stated. The threat has historically caused public to support defense, now that it is dissolving, it is a reason to doubt that the pubic will continue to support it.

E. EXACTLY. If you notice, the public used to support a SUBSTANTIAL budget during the threat. This means that they supported a budget that was MORE THAN ADEQUATE. Thus when this threat is no longer present, the only logical conclusion is that "It is doubtful that the public can be persuaded to support a substantial '/ more than adequate buget"
It is actually quite possible that the public will now support an adequate budget instead of a more than adequate one and there is not reason to doubt that specifically. Thus we need to reevaluate, in context, the exact definitions of adequate in relation to substantial to make sure that the argument is not making an unreasonable claim.

Pick E.

What type of question is this? Do we need to treat this as 'Evaluate the argument'?

Cheers

paddle_sweep wrote:What type of question is this? Do we need to treat this as 'Evaluate the argument'?

Cheers

This is a "Spot the FLAW in the argument" question.