Princeton RC - Argument

[karthikpandian19]

Between the beginning of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, United States foreign policy was governed by one overriding principle: the country must defend itself against "any perceived menace" to national security. The Soviet Union was, from the end of World War II until its demise, perceived to be just that menace.
The end of the Cold War, however, along with a belated recognition of the limitations of American resources, has brought about a new scenario. No longer able to rely upon the dictates of one overriding policy, the government suddenly finds itself faced with decisions that require either a subtle reading of American ideals or the reconciliation of seemingly contradictory objectives. For example, in the case of the civil war and apparent genocide in Bosnia, which ideal--non-intervention in national self-determination, or advocacy of human rights--should the United States pursue? To what degree does our support for the authority of the United Nations tie the nation's hands? In terms of world economics, should the United States support universal free trade, once viewed as an extremely effective weapon against the Soviets, even though the United States, with its weakened economy, may not ably compete on such a playing field? The only certainty is that the future holds difficult and potentially controversial choices for United States policy makers.



The author of the passage is arguing which of the following?


History provides irrefutable evidence that countries must aggressively pursue their self-defense, even if such a pursuit mandates unprincipled behavior.


The United States followed, from its inception, one foreign policy until its failure in Bosnia forced policy makers to reassess their priorities.


For an extended period, United States foreign policy was guided by more clearly defined objectives than it currently is.


The lesson of World War II mandates that the United States intervene to stop the genocidal war in Bosnia.


The disintegration of the Soviet Union represents the greatest foreign policy success in United States history, and the United States' actions leading up to the Soviet Union's demise provide a possible blueprint for future foreign policy.

[prernagupta12]

I am confused between:
1. The United States followed, from its inception, one foreign policy until its failure in Bosnia forced policy makers to reassess their priorities.

2. For an extended period, United States foreign policy was guided by more clearly defined objectives than it currently is.

If I were to choose one I would go for 2.

[ankita1709]

I'll go with
The United States followed, from its inception, one foreign policy until its failure in Bosnia forced policy makers to reassess their priorities.

Whats the correct answer

[karthikpandian19]

OA is C

[asax]

i go with C as well.

Last para says that there is confusion. Choice B kinda tempting but clearly not the choice since. it says
"from inception" "Until bosnia". where as in the line
"For example, in the case of the civil war and apparent genocide in Bosnia, which ideal--non-intervention in national self-determination, or advocacy of human rights"

For example doesn't mean its the only thing. Hence, not B