vikram4689 wrote:From the perspective of long-term survival, it was best for peasants in Czarist Russia to be weak. If they were strong, they would have been enlisted into the Czar's army against their will. Soldiers' lives were not highly valued by their commanders, and the bitter conditions and violent wars they endured led to a much shorter life span

Which of the following best describes a flaw in the argument above?


A) It assumes, without justification, that the only factor helping weak peasants survive longer was the fact that they were not enlisted into the army.

B) It overlooks the possibility that there were peasants of intermediate strength who enjoyed survival benefits greater than those of either the strong or the weak.

C) It assumes, without justification, that all strong peasants and all weak peasants of the time faced the same prospects in life.

D) It overlooks the possibility that strong peasants were often targeted and killed by the local aristocracy for fear that they might lead a peasant uprising.

E) The argument takes for granted that smart peasants knew how to make themselves appear weak when the army recruiters came through town.

good question but debatable OA: B, isnt C a strong contender