Explanation

The author's conclusion is that the industrialists' motive for promoting Distopian intervention in the Arcadian civil war could NOT have been to insure that the industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia made substantial profits during the war. Why not?

• "Distopia’s federal expenses for the intervention were eight billion dollars," and the Distopians foresaw this. In other words, the Distopians predicted that federal expenses for the intervention would be eight billion dollars, so these costs were not a surprise and would have been considered when deciding whether to promote Distopian intervention.
• "During the war, profits from the Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia totaled only four billion dollars." If the Distopians predicted profits of only four billion and federal expenses of eight billion, why would they have promoted intervention? The author implies that those additional expenses (for intervention) would outweigh the wartime profits. Thus, the author concludes that the industrialists, who predicted these expenses and profits, must not have been motivated by a desire to insure profits during the war.

Notice that the author's logic depends on the assumption that the industrialists would have to pay for some or all of those additional expenses for the intervention. So which of the following exposes a serious flaw in the author's conclusion?


The author's argument is only concerned with profits at the facilities in Arcadia. Choice (A) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.


The author reasons that since the federal expenses outweigh the profits from the Distopian industrialists’ facilities in Arcadia, the industrialists must not have been motivated by a desire to insure profits during the war. But if the largest proportion of those federal expenses is paid by people/groups other than the industrialists, that means that the cost of those expenses to the industrialists must have been less than half of eight billion. Furthermore, if the industrialists only had to pay for a small proportion of the federal expenses, then they may have enjoyed substantial profits during the war. This possibility significantly weakens the author's argument, so hang on to choice (B).


The author's argument revolves around whether the industrialists were motivated by a desire to insure profits DURING THE WAR. The evidence in support of the author's conclusion also involves wartime figures. Choice (C), which discusses postwar profits, has not impact on the author's argument and can be eliminated.


Again, the author's argument is only concerned with wartime profits. Choice (D) has no impact on the author's conclusion or the supporting evidence. Eliminate (D).


An alternative motive for promoting intervention could actually strengthen the author's argument. However, choice (E) does not explain why the industrialists promoted intervention (if anything, it could be a reason why the industrialists did NOT want to promote intervention). This statement does not pertain to the author's conclusion or supporting evidence, so (E) can be eliminated.

(B) is the best choice.