Introduction / Context:
The statement argues for strong discouragement of wars, despite a possibility that many victims were “a nuisance.” It focuses on the principle of opposing war, not on profiling victims. Identify what must be believed for the advice to be sensible.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I suggests wars mostly kill wicked people.
- II claims innocent people are also killed (collateral damage).
- III says vehement opposition to wars can influence outcomes (deterrence, policy, public opinion).
Concept / Approach:
- The core thrust is normative: “must be discouraged vehemently.” Such a prescription assumes that discouragement can matter (III).
- I is not required. The statement uses a concessive clause (“even if...”), so it neither asserts nor assumes I; it says “even if that were true, still discourage.”
- II may be true in reality, but the sentence does not rest on it; the argument stands on the principle of discouraging war regardless of who the victims are.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Keep III: Without the belief that strong opposition has impact, the prescription loses purpose.Discard I: Treated as a hypothetical concession, not a premise.Discard II: Not required by the wording; the principle holds without invoking collateral damage specifically.
Verification / Alternative check:
If III is false, vehement discouragement is pointless. If I or II is false, the conclusion to discourage still stands as stated.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including I or II mistake a concessive illustration for an assumed truth. “All” overcommits; “None” ignores III.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading “even if” as an assumption rather than a concession that the conclusion does not depend on.
Final Answer:
Only III is implicit
Discussion & Comments