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
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]In actual fact, a conclusion often favors one side of the argument that it is presenting. If it is supported by the premises, a conclusion can favor a certain position without the argument being considered flawed. Therefore, this answer choice does not represent the mistake in the author's logic.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]An analogy compares two situations with similar characteristics. The argument does not contain any analogies, accurate or not.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The first premise in the argument is about the cold war between Country G and Country H so military and political tension between two countries is not assumed - it's a fact.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The statement about Country H's weapons production is a premise. Therefore, it must be considered to be true without the need of further evidence.
Precisely!
[[snippet]]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.