Critical Reasoning

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author-

A.is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position

B.offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries

C.creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available

D.assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H

E.does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus


I would like to see ur reasoning. OA will be later

[spoiler]is it A?[/spoiler]

user123321

OA will be later. I kindly ask you to write down ur way of thinking.
I have read the explanation to every choices and understood why my answer choice was wrong, but could not get why the official answer is the best )) that is why I would like to see ur approach.

thnx )

My pick would be C

Do this or die! Seems to me that their may be other options which the author fails to provide.
D was attractive too. But on a timed test I would choose C

Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

I would go with option C. Please find my logic below:

The argument is flawed primarily because the author-

A.is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position
-- the author is not taking any stand for any one party. He merely states a course of action for a side apprehending an action by the other side in future. Incorrect

B.offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries
-- The author is not referring to any analogy here. Incorrect

C.creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available
-- The dilemma whether country G should attack H to prevent any worsened disaster does in no way point to any long term solution. The other ways with which a quarrel can be mitigated is not explored. The approach that to attack early is the best option is an extremist one & not logical as the actual stand for country H is unknown (refer to cold war).

This option seems logical to me.Correct

D.assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H
-- the passage states that explicity that there is cold war going on. Incorrect

E.does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus
-- irrelevant. Incorrect

Please post the OA.

Thanks,

LalaB wrote:Country G and Country H have been engaged in a cold war for almost 40 years. Common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media show that Country H has malevolent and hostile intentions towards Country G. Country H is a major manufacturer of military equipment and weapons. Even at the risk of suffering a few casualties, Country G should attack Country H now, or it is to suffer an attack by Country H later, resulting in the death of many civilians.

The argument is flawed primarily because the author-

A.is in favor of one side of the argument, instead of maintaining an objective position

B.offers an inaccurate analogy to explain the circumstances facing both countries

C.creates a false dilemma by presenting fewer paths of action than there are available

D.assumes the existence of military or political tension between Country G and Country H

E.does not provide evidence to prove Country H's production of weapons and military surplus


I would like to see ur reasoning. OA will be later

My pick would be C

Here is the rationale:

A. Out of scope. We are not judging a person here. We are judging an argument.
B. I don't really see a proper analogy anywhere in the argument.
C. Yes. This could be the answer. It does present only one approach to a solution, a hostile one, ad the argument is based on solely a hostile solution.
D. It is not assuming the tension. The tension exists and is clearly verified by other source (common knowledge and public opinions expressed through the media.)
E. He doesn't need to provide proof since the proof already exists. Country H is a "MAJOR" manufacturer of military equipment and weapons.

Hence out of all the available options, C seems the closest and to be honest the only plausible answer that brings out the flaw the most.

My Choice C

the correct answer is C

the explanation is [spoiler]The author's conclusion presents only two options: attack now, or be attacked. Based on the premises, this lack of options cannot be supported. How does the author know that Country H will definitely attack? Is a military attack Country G's best strategy? The author oversimplifies the situation without logically eliminating other possible plans of action.[/spoiler]