Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
Inez's conclusion is: We should judge a country by the morality of its actions.
Why? There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.
Answer choice (C) states: "It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries."
Does this strengthen the argument? Yes. If it is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries, then we can determine whether the actions of a country are morally good, and--in so doing--determine whether a country is admirable.
Does the negation of this answer choice make the argument fall apart? Yes.
Negation: it is not possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries.
Well, if it is not possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries, then we cannot determine whether or not a country's actions are morally good or bad, and so we cannot determine--in that way--whether a country is admirable.
Thus, answer choice (C) is a presupposition that underlies Inez's argument.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
AnkitMFebruary 23, 2016
Is E incorrect because it discusses "other countries". And we are just discussing a case where if someone wants to judge a country they should judge by morality. So it's incorrect because it discusses a general case by stating whatever means necessary. Thanks in advance.
