Industrialists from the country Distopia were accused of promoting the Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war merely to insure that the industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. Yet this cannot be the motive since, as the Distopians foresaw, Distopia’s federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars, whereas, during the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars.
Which of the following, if true, exposes a serious flaw in the argument made in the second sentence above?
(A) During the Arcadian war, many Distopian industrialists with facilities located in Arcadia experienced a significant rise in productivity in their facilities located in Distopia.
(B) The largest proportion of Distopia’s federal expenses is borne by those who receive no significant industrial profits.
(C) Most Distopian industrialists’ facilities located in Arcadia are expected to maintain the level of profits they achieved during the war.
(D) Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits before the events that triggered the civil war.
(E) Many Distopians expressed concern over the suffering that Arcadians underwent during the civil war.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Why do u think A is a flaw when it says investing during war leads to increased productivity?Again the argument is about profits expected from investment and how does this option affect the same.
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

B - if the expenses of the war are borne by others, industrialists are set to gain $4 billion dollars. This shows a flaw in the argument.

Industrialists of country D were accused of promoting country D's intervention in the war.
The next statement directly says - this cannot be true because overall profit was $4bn whereas federal expenses were $8bn.
The implicit assumption of the second sentence is that industry had to pay for the war expenses. .
Read the argument carefully, no such thing has been explicitly said.

Now, if the industry was not supposed to pay for the war expenses, why on earth would they be bothered about how much expense the govt will have to bear.
this is exactly what choice B says.

The answer is B here .

Argument : Industrialists backed their nation's intervention in war to promote their business interests.

Counter Argument : This was not possible because , the war cost 8 billion whereas the profit was 4 billion only .

The flaw is that the argument assumes that those industralists who promote the war are the ones who bear the cost of war. Hence it is trying to direclty correlate between the war cost and business profit .

We will have to prove that the industralists who profited are not the ones who contributed to the war cost and the relevance is not there . B says that precisely.

This question is very confusing...
_________________

Consider kudos for good explanations.

This question is really really confusing ... is there an official explanation??