Hi. This is a tricky question that requires understanding of the argument and the parameters provided within it. We have to analyze the reasoning of the imposing nation.
The key to this question is the setup:
assume that the dictator will change policies unacceptable to the imposing nation when the citizens of the country against which the sanctions are imposed lose sufficient access to necessities such as food, water, and clothing. The reasoning of the imposing nation regarding the success of the sanctions is flawed becauseYou have to prove that the reasoning is flawed. You do not need to explain why the dictator may not budge. Many reasons why the dictator may not budge but only one correct explanation why the reasoning is flawed.
The solution has to focus on the reasoning and assumption presented in the question. We are told that the assumption is that the suffering of people will force the dictator to change their policies. Thus any answer such as "Dictator will not change his mind" or an external factor such as "Aliens will invade" are outside of the scope of the argument. We are not told why the dictator may reverse their policy but if the answer is not based on the reasoning of the imposing nation, then it is not the answer.
P.S. I don't think the explanation below is an explanation of the argument. It seems to be explaining dictators and sanctions rather than the argument.
Moderator note: I revised the grammar of the question and a few answer choices to make it more appropriate.
NeerajR2000
I think the correct answer is:
the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy
This option highlights a crucial flaw in the reasoning of the imposing nation. Economic sanctions assume that the dictator will change policies due to pressure from citizens affected by the sanctions. However, if the dictator has strong ideological reasons for maintaining their policies, they may be willing to withstand the pressure and continue their current policies, even if it means their citizens suffer.
This option is a more plausible explanation for the flawed reasoning than the other options, which are less convincing or irrelevant to the context.
The option "the dictator is not concerned by the inconvenience of his people" is incorrect because it doesn't necessarily explain why the dictator wouldn't change their policies in response to economic sanctions.
A dictator who is unconcerned about their people's well-being might still change their policies if they believe it would benefit them personally or maintain their power. For example, if the sanctions are severe enough to threaten the dictator's own position or wealth, they might still choose to change their policies to alleviate the pressure.
In contrast, the correct option "the dictator has ideological reasons for maintaining national policy" suggests that the dictator's commitment to their policies is driven by deeply held beliefs or values, making them more resistant to changing their policies, even in the face of economic sanctions.