If military aid to Latin American countries is to be stopped because

The correct answer is (C). The argument in the question stem commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in two respects. It reasons from military aid to Latin America (a particular type of aid to a certain region) to the general conclusion that all aid must be stopped, regardless of type or of recipient. (C) parallels this. From a particular conclusion about one form of government in one country, it moves to a general conclusion about all government—regardless of form or of society. Although (A), (B), and (D) have superficial similarities of content (war, donation, military), the logical structures of these arguments differ from that of the stem paragraph. (A) is a valid argument: Given anything that is a war, if any war is to be condemned, then all wars are to be condemned. (B) is not a valid argument but a nonsequitur. It does not follow that an obligation on one party guarantees a benefit to any other. For example, there may not be enough rich to provide for all the poor. (D) is also a nonsequitur. That we reject a system now because we lack the money to buy it does not imply we should buy it when we have funds. Finally, (E) is not really an argument but only a statement. Not all “If . . . , then . . . .” statements mean “P, therefore Q.” For example, “If you do not do the assignment, you will fail the course” is not an argument with a premise and a conclusion but a single statement that describes a causal relation.