After the United Nations Security

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact6% picked this

   The UN Security Council cannot legally commit the military of a member nation to armed

   This is saying that the UN can't force a country to commit their military to the international coalition trying to quell the disturbance in country Z. But that didn't happen in this story. The UN didn't force country A to commit military. The prime minister committed the military, and this answer provides no reason why Parliament would be mad at the PM for doing so

   6%
2. B

   Correct75% picked this

   In the parliamentary leader’s nation, it is the constitutional perogative of the parliament, not of the prime minister,

   Why this is right

   This explains why, even though Parliament supports the UN cause, Parliament was mad at the PM for committing the military to the UN cause. They're like, "Heyyyy. That's our job, not yours. Stay in your lane, Prime Minister. The constitution gives us the power, not you, to commit the military to foreign action."

   Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   75%
3. C

   Mixed Impact8% picked this

   The parliament would be responsible for providing the funding necessary in order to contribute military personnel

   This is somewhat tempting, because we might tell ourselves, "The Parliament is mad about the PM committing the military, because parliament will have to come up with the money to pay for this." The problem is that we have a background fact saying that most members support the UN plan. So parliament members broadly should be willing to spend money on supporting the plan.

   8%
4. D

   No Impact: public support3% picked this

   The public would not support the military action unless it was known that the parliament

   We don't really care about public support here, unless it gives us a way to explain why parliament is mad at the PM. This answer doesn't do that.

   3%
5. E

   Unclear Impact8% picked this

   Members of the parliament traditionally are more closely attuned to public sentiment, especially with regard to military action,

   This could potentially explain why parliament was mad at the PM for committing military to the UN cause if we assumed a few things: 1. the public is not in favor of committing to the UN cause. 2. parliament, despite favoring the UN cause, would choose to act in accordance with public sentiment and oppose contributing military support to the UN cause. 3. parliament would get mad at the PM for doing something that goes against the public's preferences. That's too many assumptions of our own that we would need to build in to make this answer work.

   8%