- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:01 am
#22899
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument is that since Zeria's actions regarding other nations are inconsistent with the idea that human rights violations would be sufficient to cause Zeria to sever diplomatic ties, Zeria's actions regarding Nandalo are not caused exclusively by human rights issues.
The argument assumes that Zeria's foreign policy is consistent from one country to another. Without some information that is an unwarranted assumption, not in the least because we know that countries are in practice inconsistent in their foreign policies.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Even though this choice does not prove the argument correct, it provides a possible additional cause for Zeria's policy.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice might actually weaken the stimulus by suggesting that human rights might be a sufficient cause, and is incorrect. You may have thought that this answer choice opened up the possibility that international opinion was a factor; however, that interpretation is not strong because Zeria made its announcement weeks before the other nations made theirs.
Answer choice (C): The comparison between the human rights records of Zeria and Nandalo is probably irrelevant. If you assumed it was relevant, you should realize that this choice weakens the argument, which claimed there were causes other than human rights concerns, by making it less likely that posturing is a cause for Zeria's behavior.
Answer choice (D): A misread of this answer choice suggests that Zeria's actions are in retaliation, strengthening the stimulus. However, a correct reading notes that Nandalo has "considered" accusations. It is inappropriate for you to assume that Zeria is aware of those considerations, so you should not conclude that Zeria's "retaliation" is pre-emptive. Furthermore, you should not assume that Nandalo's accusations would be justified. This answer choice is incorrect, and it is very interesting that it comes immediately after and superficially responds to concerns raised in answer choice (C).
Answer choice (E): Since the opposition party's position does not infer the ruling party's position, you should not assume that this choice establishes anything about Zeria's foreign policy or position on human rights. An opposition party does not have to be in total opposition.
Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument is that since Zeria's actions regarding other nations are inconsistent with the idea that human rights violations would be sufficient to cause Zeria to sever diplomatic ties, Zeria's actions regarding Nandalo are not caused exclusively by human rights issues.
The argument assumes that Zeria's foreign policy is consistent from one country to another. Without some information that is an unwarranted assumption, not in the least because we know that countries are in practice inconsistent in their foreign policies.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Even though this choice does not prove the argument correct, it provides a possible additional cause for Zeria's policy.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice might actually weaken the stimulus by suggesting that human rights might be a sufficient cause, and is incorrect. You may have thought that this answer choice opened up the possibility that international opinion was a factor; however, that interpretation is not strong because Zeria made its announcement weeks before the other nations made theirs.
Answer choice (C): The comparison between the human rights records of Zeria and Nandalo is probably irrelevant. If you assumed it was relevant, you should realize that this choice weakens the argument, which claimed there were causes other than human rights concerns, by making it less likely that posturing is a cause for Zeria's behavior.
Answer choice (D): A misread of this answer choice suggests that Zeria's actions are in retaliation, strengthening the stimulus. However, a correct reading notes that Nandalo has "considered" accusations. It is inappropriate for you to assume that Zeria is aware of those considerations, so you should not conclude that Zeria's "retaliation" is pre-emptive. Furthermore, you should not assume that Nandalo's accusations would be justified. This answer choice is incorrect, and it is very interesting that it comes immediately after and superficially responds to concerns raised in answer choice (C).
Answer choice (E): Since the opposition party's position does not infer the ruling party's position, you should not assume that this choice establishes anything about Zeria's foreign policy or position on human rights. An opposition party does not have to be in total opposition.