Passage Summary: Some people think living without a government could work, but since social philosophy is supposed to keep things peaceful and anarchy is just another word for chaos, we should ignore those people.

Conclusion: The view that anarchy is a viable social philosophy deserves no further attention.

Reasoning: Social philosophy must promote peace and order, and since anarchy is defined as chaos, it fails to meet the fundamental requirements of an acceptable philosophy.

Analysis: Bowers is guilty of a 'begging the question' flaw by using a biased definition to dismiss an opposing view. He defines anarchy as 'chaos' to disqualify it, but the theorists he is attacking would almost certainly argue that anarchy does *not* lead to chaos. By assuming the very point that is likely under dispute, Bowers fails to provide a fair or logical critique of the arguments. Look for an answer choice that points out this circular use of definitions to dismiss a position.