lsat 5-2-25

yuanhaiying

The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.

Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?

(A) It presupposes that public opinion can be manipulated indefinitely, without the public’s becoming aware of that manipulation.

(B) It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.

(C) It assumes as fact what it seeks to establish by reasoning.

(D) It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches.

(E) It hinges on the term “adequate,” the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context

我不明白E的意思，哪位好心人给我解释一下！！！！！！！

fredshen

E says the "adequate" can mean different amount in different times. E.g. 100 milliion might be "adquate" when Eastern bloc existed, but now maybe 50 million is a adeuate number given Eastern bloc had dissolved.  

yuanhaiying

I see , thankyou

ssssss

The public in the United States has in the past been conditioned to support a substantial defense budget by the threat of confrontation with the Eastern bloc. Now that that threat is dissolving, along with the Eastern bloc itself, it is doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.

This is a question that you need to find the logical flow of the argument. The logical flow in this argument is ambiguous of word use. The word “adequate” defined differently in different context, cold war and post cold war.

Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?

(A) It presupposes that public opinion can be manipulated indefinitely, without the public’s becoming aware of that manipulation.

This did not describe of the flaw in the argument.

(B) It refers to past and present events that do not have a causal connection with public support of the budget.

This did not describe of the flaw in the argument.

(C) It assumes as fact what it seeks to establish by reasoning.

This did not describe of the flaw in the argument. This is a description of circular reasoning.

(D) It fails to give any reason for the judgment it reaches.

This did not describe of the flaw in the argument.

(E) It hinges on the term “adequate,” the precise meaning of which requires reevaluation in the new context

Bull eye.