Introduction / Context:
Foreign-policy reasoning often balances deterrence with engagement. We must judge the strength of the two arguments on extending goodwill to difficult neighbours.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Argument I claims goodwill “pays dividends” (builds trust, economic ties, crisis hotlines).
- Argument II claims generosity will be “considered a weakness” (speculative perception).
- No specific neighbour or situation is given; we assess general policy logic.
Concept / Approach:
A strong argument generally supports constructive, reversible moves that can create positive-sum outcomes and reduce conflict. It should rely on plausible mechanisms, not solely on conjectured perceptions.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Strong. Goodwill can facilitate cooperation (trade, people-to-people links, crisis management). It does not preclude deterrence and can be calibrated. Hence, a sound general-case rationale.Argument II: Weak as stated. The assumption that generosity will be read only as weakness ignores diplomacy’s ability to blend confidence-building with credible deterrence. It is speculative and one-sided.
Verification / Alternative check:
International relations show that engagement plus deterrence (dual-track) often reduces miscalculation and yields pragmatic benefits.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II / Either / Neither / Both: These either privilege speculation or refuse a generally constructive principle.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating diplomacy as a binary of appeasement vs. hostility; ignoring calibrated goodwill.
Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong
Discussion & Comments