Introduction / Context:
The statement contests the contribution of nuclear power to national security. From this, we must infer reasonable, proportionate actions—ones that align with the premise without leaping to extreme, unsafe conclusions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The premise is that nuclear power does not secure a country.
- Course I: Stop additional expenditure on increasing nuclear power capacity.
- Course II: Destroy existing nuclear capability—an extreme, risky step.
- Course III: Strengthen diplomatic relations as an alternative path to security.
Concept / Approach:
- If nuclear power does not improve security, marginal spending to expand it may be re-evaluated (I).
- Eliminating capability entirely (II) goes beyond the premise and could harm energy or deterrence considerations.
- Diplomacy (III) plausibly improves security by reducing conflict drivers and strengthening alliances.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Accept I: The premise questions the payoff of further investment for security aims.Reject II: Destruction of capability is neither implied nor prudent.Accept III: Diplomacy is a sensible alternative lever for security benefits.
Verification / Alternative check:
Policy analysis typically revisits marginal investments when claimed benefits are doubtful, and elevates alternative instruments such as diplomacy.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or Only III: Misses the complementary nature of the two accepted steps.II only or including II: Embraces an extreme not warranted by the premise.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “does not enhance security” with “must be abolished.”
Final Answer:
Only I and III follow
Discussion & Comments