Critical Reasoning

Many Ann: Our country should, above all, be strong. Strength gains the respect of other countries and makes a country admirable.
Inez: There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities. We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength. If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.

Which one of the following is a presupposition that underlies Inez' argument?

(A) At least one country is admirable.
(B) Countries can not be both strong and moral.
(C) It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries.
(D) The citizens of any country believe that whatever their country does is good.
(E) Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary.

I am convinced about the answer but can someone explain why B should be ruled out?
OA: C

Inez's argument:

Premise 1: There are many examples of countries misusing their strength.
Premise 2: If an action is morally good, the country is admirable.
Conclusion: Judge a country by the morality of its actions not its strength.

We are looking for a presupposition that Inez is making.


A. Irrelevant.

B. Whether a country is strong or weak, Inez says that it should be admired for the morality in its action. Even if a country is both strong and moral, the argument is valid as it only speaks of morality as a factor, and doesn't restrict the country's strength in any way; it is only said that a country should not be judged by its strength.

C. This directly addresses a key point of the argument "the morality of actions". Therefore it is presupposed that this morality is attributable to the actions of countries.

D. Irrelevant.

E. Irrelevant.

Aah I see, that was an extremely stupid mistake on my part!!