Question

Suppose there is a policy debate over imposing trade restrictions on imported semiconductors in the United States. A political pundit argues that the government should impose a tariff on semiconductors, because they are a necessary input into the production of various weapons. Free trade would make the United States overly dependent on foreign countries for the supply of semiconductors. In case of a war, the United States might not be able to make or purchase enough of them and would therefore not be able to make enough weapons to defend itself. What argument is the pundit using to justify the trade restriction on semiconductors?

Answer 1

National defense argument

Step-by-step explanation:

The National defense argument is an argument used to defend tariffs placed on the importation of goods and services used for the production of weapons of warfare. this argument is usually made in favor of a locally based industry producing the same goods which import tariffs are placed on.

This argument defends the fact that products used for producing war equipment should be locally produced to avoid over reliance on foreign firms when the country needs to provide weapons for the defense of the country. and also the goods are better monitored and regulated when produced locally making the country less dependent on foreign firms in general.

Answer 2

Answer: The pundit is using a NATIONAL DEFENSE ARGUMENT to justify the trade restriction.

Explanation: National defense argument is when someone is using the security of the nation to defend his argument, to be very important as the security of the nation is very important.

This type of argument always tends to use the fallacy of red herring to convince his audience about his argument. The argument sounds to be important as it used red herring to relate it's point to the security of the nation during wartime.

The pundit politician has used the fallacy of red herring to relate it's reason of increment in the tariff of semiconductor importation, to the security of the nation during war times. Therefore this is a national security argument.