Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: if only conclusion II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement identifies the criterion for withdrawal: the missions are outside the countries’ “strategic interest.” That phrase signals policy choices driven by national objectives, not necessarily by frontline safety conditions or altruistic motives.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
We must test which conclusion necessarily follows. If actions correlate with self-interest (strategic interest), it is reasonable that deployments are guided more by national aims than by the host country’s needs. However, claiming safety as the main reason introduces a different, unstated rationale.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion I (safety caution): The text does not mention safety; a theater can be safe yet outside strategic interest, or dangerous yet strategically vital. Hence I does not follow.2) Conclusion II (self-interest motive): Because the stated decision rule is alignment with “strategic interest,” self-interest is explicitly foregrounded as the driver for staying or leaving. Thus II follows.
Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had said “they withdrew due to escalating risks,” safety would be implicated. Instead, “outside strategic interest” grounds the decision in national self-interest.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” or “Neither” misread the explicit rationale given; “Only I” invents a safety premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Conflating strategic interest (policy calculus) with troop safety (operational risk) and assuming they always coincide.
Final Answer:
if only conclusion II follows
Discussion & Comments