It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons. But if United States companies do not do so, companies in other countries will.

Which of the following is most like the argument above in its logical structure?

(A) It is true that it is against the police department’s policy to negotiate with kidnappers. But if the police want to prevent loss of life, they must negotiate in some cases.

(B) It is true that it is illegal to refuse to register for military service. But there is a long tradition in the United States of conscientious objection to serving in the armed forces.

(C) It is true that it is illegal for a government official to participate in a transaction in which there is an apparent conflict of interest. But if the facts are examined carefully, it will clearly be seen that there was no actual conflict of interest in the defendant’s case.

(D) It is true that it is against the law to burglarize people’s homes. But someone else certainly would have burglarized that house if the defendant had not done so first.

(E) It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings. But there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Can you plz tell me how it is D.
Question says...if USA do not do anyways other counries will do rgt?(coreect me if iam worng).
How we can compare it to D?
D says it is against the law to do......but it didt say whether it may be done in near furture so it is better to do now.

Thanks to tell

WOW for explaination, thanks a lot g8 explanation.

New Gmat club project
Click here