Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only assumption II is implicit
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Describing a pact as “fragile” while noting an unresolved sovereignty issue signals instability. We must determine which assumption is necessary for this characterization to matter.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Calling a pact fragile presupposes risk of breakdown, not the impossibility of lasting peace. Thus, the necessary belief is the possibility of renewed hostility, not a categorical “never” on permanence.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assumption II aligns with “fragile”: the accord could collapse, leading to renewed tensions.Assumption I overreaches: “cannot have permanent peace” is an absolute claim that is not required to call the current pact fragile.Verification / Alternative check:
A fragile bridge may still last if reinforced; fragility signals risk, not impossibility.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only and Both: Commit to an absolute that the statement does not imply.Either/Neither: Fail to capture the clear risk embedded in “fragile.”Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “risk of failure” with “certainty of failure.”Final Answer:Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments