Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.
We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.
Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.
Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.
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
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.
An analogy compares two situations with similar characteristics. The argument does not contain any analogies, accurate or not.
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.
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.
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.