Critical Reasoning Question 3-Balaland Republic - Private Tutoring

Critical Reasoning Question 3-Balaland Republic BobbiM Jan 27, 2014 Critical Reasoning Question 3 An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic. The U.S. Neutrality Act plainly forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, we should bring charges against these fanatics, who are in open defiance of the law. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above? A. The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody and escalating civil war. B. Diplomatic relations between the United States and the Balaland Republic were severed last year. C. The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the United States goes to war against the Balaland Republic. D. The training of recruits is funded not by E.S. citizens, but rather by a consortium of individuals from abroad. E. Charges cannot be brought against the private group that is training the recruits unless an investigation is first launched. Correct answer: C U.S. law forbids U.S. citizens from engaging in military campaigns against countries unless the United States is at war with those countries. Since no war has been declared between the United States and the Balaland Republic, the author concludes that the recruits being trained to fight against the Balaland Republic are defying U.S. law. But if, as (C) asserts, the recruits are being trained to fight only if a way is declared, then theyre not in defiance of U.S. law. Being prepared for battle is different from actually engaging in it. (A)s no weakener; we cant assume that the countrys escalating civil war justifies military action against it. In (B), severing diplomatic ties doesnt go far enough to show that training recruits is justifiable under U.S. law. As for (D), who funds the rebels was never mentioned by the author and is irrelevant. And as for (E), the author starts off calling for an investigation, so he doesnt assert that charges should be brought without launching an investigation first.