Critical Reasoning — Assumptions Statement: “Wars must be discouraged vehemently even if a majority of the victims might have been a nuisance to peace-loving people.” Assumptions to evaluate: I. Wars kill a majority of wicked people. II. Innocent people are also killed in wars. III. Vehement opposition to wars can have some desirable impact.

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:

Verification / Alternative check:

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:

Final Answer: