here we are trying to find out the choice that will provide a reason for us to doubt the conclusion i.e people are scared that ww2 will be repeated so lots on little confrontations stop becoming into large scale wars such as ww2.



A

Agree with buffdaddy - "A". We have a cause and effect situation in the main question. "Fear" leads to "No war"; Statement A shows that this is not always true, thereby weakening the statement.

What is the QA?

A...I think E strengthens the argument.

I agree with you hanumayamma, it is E

if it's not E, and countries were affraid of war, then how come most of the countries that participated in the "smaller" battles, were the very same countries that participated in WWII?

I think equating international confrontations to small battles is somewhat confusing.

Since 1945 there have been numerous international confrontations as tense as those that precipitated the Second World War and yet no large-scale conflict has resulted.
'There have been many conflicts but they havent resulted in War.

To explain this, some argue that fear of enormous destruction such as the Second World War produced has had a dramatic deterrent effect.
'There have been no Wars because the destruction of a previous War has scared people away from going into another War.'

E) Many of the international confrontations that have occurred since 1945 have involved countries that participated in the Second World War.
The people in the previous War are the people who are in the current conflicts.

I make you mad and you decide to fight me and I . I make you mad again but yet you havent decided to fight me yet. That could be because of fear.

A) After the First World War, the fear of great future destruction was as intense as it was after the Second World War.
'Before the second War there was another war in which people were scared and the went to war anyway.'

There was fear before and people went to war anyway so obviously fear will not stop people from going to war.