Will post OA soon.Wanted to get the opinion of all you good folks here ..
An investigation must be launched into the operations of the private group that is training recruits to fight against the Balaland Republic.The US neutrality acts plainly forbids US citizens from engaging in military campaigns against any nation with which we are not at war.Since no war has been declared between the USA 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?
A)The Balaland Republic is currently engaged in a bloody civil war.
B)Diplomatic relations between the USA and Balaland Republic were severed last year.
C)The recruits are being trained to fight only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic.
D)The training of recruits is funded not by US citizens,but rather 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.
If we even find the signal of war
, or the severed relation btw US and Balaland Republic, the investigation must NOT
be lauched. Right?
Clearly B is only one mention the signal of war
A. the civil war in BRepublic may or may not affect
the relation btw US and BR,
the argument by saying that "only in the event the USA goes to war against the Balaland Republic."
D. Who funds the training of recruits is IRRELEVANT
to the argument
rather than weakens the argument by saying that an investigation is necessary
B is incorrect because the law would be violated whether the US had ties with BR or not.
C states that no laws are violated since it is only a training exercise (and not an actual "military campaign").