Critical Reasoning

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.

[spoiler]How to select b/w D and E[/spoiler]

Some companies/countries go against international nuke law. USA is doing this
A) negotiate with law breakers
B) refuse the law. this refusal is happenign from long time
c) No law break at all.
d) Half good.. who is defendent
e) firing emp is against comp law,many bosses go aganist the law.

Why is B not correct? B/E but B > E for me.

If X will not do not Y, Z will do it.
only option D follows this logic IMO.

This is a parallel resoning type of question. The structure of the argument given in the question is
:

P: It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons ( statement taken as truth).

P: But if United States companies do not do so

c: companies in other countries will

The last sentence follows the causal relationship If not X then Y.

E is the wrong answer choice because it does not match with the structute of the argument given.

The structure of answer choice E is:

P:It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings.
(statement taken as truth)

c: there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.

There is no If not X then Y structure here.

D satisfies the structural requirement perfectly.

champmag wrote:This is a parallel resoning type of question. The structure of the argument given in the question is
:

P: It is true that it is against international law to sell plutonium to countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons ( statement taken as truth).

P: But if United States companies do not do so

c: companies in other countries will

The last sentence follows the causal relationship If not X then Y.

E is the wrong answer choice because it does not match with the structute of the argument given.

The structure of answer choice E is:

P:It is true that company policy forbids supervisors to fire employees without two written warnings.
(statement taken as truth)

c: there have been many supervisors who have disobeyed this policy.

There is no If not X then Y structure here.

D satisfies the structural requirement perfectly.

Good work Megha,

I got the your point and the feel of the question..Thanks