Mary Ann: Our country should

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant Quality2% picked this

   At least one country is

   Even though this seems like an appealingly weak claim, the negation doesn't hurt the argument. If we say, "Hey, Inez, NO country is admirable", we're not objecting to her argument. Her argument is just about how we should judge a country, but it's compatible with her argument if we judge all of them as non-admirable.

   2%
2. B

   Too Strong: cannot15% picked this

   Countries cannot be both strong and

   Inez doesn't need these two things to be totally mutually exclusive. It doesn't hurt her argument if it's possible to be both strong and moral. She is saying that it's better to judge a country by its morality than its strength, but that claim allows for morality and strength to sometimes overlap.

   15%
3. C

   Correct81% picked this

   It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions

   Why this is right

   This must be assumed for Inez's recommendation to be feasible. If it's impossible to assign moral weight to a country's actions, then there would be no way to judge a country by its morality.

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

   81%
4. D

   Too Strong: any / whatever0% picked this

   The citizens of any country believe that whatever their country does

   This is an insanely strong claim. She just said let's judge countries by morality, since strength can often be paired with terrible actions. She's nowhere close to committing herself to this indefensible claim that in every single country, every single citizen believes that every single thing their country does is good.

   0%
5. E

   Out of Scope: impose standards2% picked this

   Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by

   Her argument is only about how to judge a country. This is about what countries should do. She never addresses anything in that realm.

   2%