Arguments evaluation (dissolving the United Nations Organisation): Should an organisation like the UNO be dissolved? Examine—(I) Yes: with the Cold War over, such bodies have no role; (II) No: without such organisations, a world war may ensue—testing necessity beyond Cold War dynamics and the plausibility of deterrence.

Given data

• Question: Whether to dissolve the UNO.
• Argument I: Claims redundancy post–Cold War—ignores peacekeeping, development, health, climate, and law.
• Argument II: Warns that absence of such fora could raise conflict risks—plausible deterrence/mediation role.

Concept/ApproachA strong argument recognises the multi-faceted mandate of global institutions. Narrow historical framing is weak; acknowledging conflict-mitigation functions is stronger.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I is reductive and therefore weak.Step 2: II highlights the stabilising role of international institutions—more compelling.

Verification/AlternativeBeyond geopolitics, global public goods (pandemic response, refugee protection) require coordinating bodies.

Common pitfalls

• Equating one historical function with the entire raison d'être of an institution.

Final AnswerOnly argument II is strong.