LSAT 41, Logical Reasoning II, Q23, LSATHacks

LR Question 23 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Arms control agreements will preserve peace.

ANALYSIS: The past does not necessarily predict the future. Remember this on the LSAT, and in life. Just because past wars were preceded by arms buildups doesn’t mean that all future wars will necessarily be preceded by an arms buildup.

The diplomat is reasoning that without an arms buildup, war will be impossible. But we already have enough weapons to destroy the world many times over. Just press the button…

___________

1. CORRECT. Yes. We could easily have a war without a major arms buildup, even though wars tend to have been preceded by arms buildups.
2. This gets it backwards. We can have arms buildups without war. The diplomat is arguing we can’t have war without arms buildups.
3. Code for circular reasoning. But the conclusion goes beyond the premises, so that’s not happening here.
4. This is a likely reason for an arms buildup, but it could still lead to war. The diplomat is probably aware of this.
5. This would actually strengthen the diplomat’s argument. He’s probably aware that small wars can be preceded by arms buildups.

Recap: The question begins with “Diplomat: Every major war in the last 200 years has been”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.