#17 - After the Second World War, the charter of the newly

[Oakenshield]

Hello everyone,
I am little confused about this question. I have known that:
Evidence: The burden of maintaining world peace would rest on the world’s major powers, and no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant.
Conclusion:The five nations that were then the major powers would permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes.
Does "the five nations" imply "the only five nations"?

Thanks in advance.

[Clay Cooper]

Hello Oakenshield,

Thanks for your question.

Yes, as it is used here, the phrase "the five nations that were then the major powers" refers specifically to exactly five nations, and no more. It would therefore be accurate to say that the sentence could be interpreted to mean, "The only five nations...".

The use of the definite article "the" to refer to these five nations makes it clear that there are exactly five - which makes it okay to conclude that these were the only major powers at that time.

I hope that helps!

[MikeJones]

Hello Oakenshield,

Thanks for your question.

Yes, as it is used here, the phrase "the five nations that were then the major powers" refers specifically to exactly five nations, and no more. It would therefore be accurate to say that the sentence could be interpreted to mean, "The only five nations...".

The use of the definite article "the" to refer to these five nations makes it clear that there are exactly five - which makes it okay to conclude that these were the only major powers at that time.

I hope that helps!

Had trouble deciding between B and C here. Are we to assume that the nations mentioned in C are already major powers? If a nation that wasn't a major power before the war was split into major and minor, this implies that there is a new major power, which is the same as B.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Mike,

This is a great question! The issue that you bring up may be a problem for the Security Council's reasoning, depending on how you interpret this answer choice.

Answer choice (C) does not necessarily tell us to imagine the blocks as containing new or old major powers. For that reason you have to interpret the answer choice as including either possibility. Now ask yourself, would the Security Council have to assume that neither possibility could occur? It would be necessary for them to say that power blocks with new powers could not arise, but they do not have to assume that no power blocks could ever form. In short, this statement goes beyond what the argument must assume. They

If you are still not sure, apply the Assumption Negation Technique. This technique states that the logical negation of the correct answer must certainly weaken the argument. The logical negation for this is simple: replace the phrase "would not" with "could." If you told the security council learned that new power blocks could form in the coming years, would this provide a strong objection? No. The security council would say that it is not certain that these blocks contain any new major powers. It would be necessary for the Security Council to assume that no power blocks would form with new major powers, but this statement was not assumed in answer choice (C).

Now compare this to answer choice (B). This statement tells us specifically about new major powers. It says that the Security Council must assume that no new major power will develop. This picks out the same idea you were looking for in answer choice (C) much more clearly.

[Coleman]

Hi,

I got a quick question about the premise of this argument. What confuses me is the last sentence "no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant."
Is this just a red-herring we could simply ignore? What is the implication of this premise within the context?

The reason given for this arrangement was that the burden of maintaining world peace would rest on the world's major powers - the five nations who would permanently have the sole authority to veto - they are responsible for maintaining world peace based on the power they could possibly wield. At least I got this part correct.
However, I can't even comprehend what is the point of the last sentence... does no nation indicate six member countries out of eleven in the Security Council? What is the assumption about the burden of enforcing a decision? This question may sound stupid but I'm completely lost here. Could you help me understand what is the purpose of this premise?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Coleman!

That last sentence is "the reasoning given for the structure of the Security Council" and so it is pretty important to being able to answer this question!

The charter of the Security Council stated that "the five nations who were then the major powers would permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes."

Why did they give the major powers veto-power?

Because the burden of maintaining world peace should rest on the world's major powers and no nation should be required to enforce a decision it doesn't like. In other words, the major powers get to veto because they're the ones who have the armies, weapons, etc. that would be required to enforce decisions made by the Security Council but they should not be required to use their militaries for actions they don't agree with. So if they think an action is repugnant, they can veto it.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[jjjk776]

Hello,
Could someone please explain why E is incorrect/overall how one would come to the answer B?
Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi jjj,

Let's break this down in to premise(s) and conclusion. The assumption is something that is required for the conclusion to follow from the premises. It doesn't have to prove the conclusion, but it is required to be true.

P1: Security counsel had the collective responsibility for world peace
P2: Five nations that were then the major powers had the only vetoes

C: Burden on maintaining peace would rest on the world powers
AND no nation would have to enforce a decision they found repugnant.

To me, the huge jump was made surrounding the five major powers veto. They were set based on the major powers at that time. But what if it changed? What if there are new powers? What if old powers lose their power? Then the conclusion wouldn't follow. If there are new powers, they could have to enforce a decision that they didn't have the option to veto. If the old powers lose their power, they could have the burden of maintaining peace without the power to go along with it.

Answer choice (E) doesn't address that issue at all. We can also use the assumption negation technique here. When negated, this answer choice would say that decisions by a majority of nations would not be biased in favor of one or more of the major powers. This doesn't impact the argument at all. The Security Council isn't composed of a majority of nations. There are no hidden assumptions about what a majority of nations would or would not do.

Answer choice (B): When we negate this answer choice, it says that a new nation will become a world power. This hurts the argument as explained above. If there's a new world power, they wouldn't have a veto and could be dragged into actions they disagree with. Because the negated form attacks the argument, this answer choice is the correct assumption.

Hope that helps!