lsat-5-2-25

simion

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

为何选E，感觉这个错误并不明显，虽然看了答案也觉得有理，但做这种题总感觉很没把握。

chelseayang

For this type of question, the "process of elimination" is the best way to do it.

A: there is no such presupposition
B: this sentence is confusing. the argument does refer to the past and present event.But  there is causal connection between the events and public support of the budget. Moreover, The argument is concerned about the adequacy of the publci support. Whether the public will support the budget or not is not the issue.

c: there is no such circular reasoning

d:the argument does give a reason for its conclusion, i.e., a changed circumstance.

simion

有理，我也如此认为。不愧是斑竹，感谢辛勤劳动啊

lawyer_1

这是LSAT，它的思路体现了LSAT思路的严密性。在结论中突然出现新词adequate（充分的），原文有没有任何证据表示这层意思。这就是推理中的缺陷。如果有一点支持也算adequate的话，显然结论就成立不了。故E对。

simion

两位的解说不仅精确，而且及时。人气会越来越好。

huar

可否翻译一下题干的意思?

lawyer_1

关键第一句话：在过去，由于面对Eastern bloc的威胁，美国公众支持大量的国防预算。

GMATCRACKER1983

小弟我怎么认为本题的错误在于Ａ－－－＞Ｂ而后又说了ＮＯＴ　Ｂ－－－－＞ＮＯＴ　Ａ呢？？／？？？？？

Ａ（ＴＨＲＥＡＴ）　　Ｂ（ＳＵＰＰＯＲＴ），之后　说　ＮＯＴ　Ａ（没有威胁）－－－＞ＮＯＴ　Ｂ（不支持）

GMATCRACKER1983

up~~!

quiny

up