It may be asked: How could the Soviet Government have consented to conclude a non-aggression pact with such treacherous fiends a
s Hitler and Ribbentrop? Was not this an error on the part of the Soviet Government? Of course not! Non-aggression pacts are pacts of peace between two States. It was such a pact that Germany proposed to us in 1939. Could the Soviet Government have declined such a proposal? I think that not a single peace-loving State could decline a peace treaty with a neighboring State even though the latter was headed by such fiends and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop.
Which of the following statements explains a logical fallacy in this excerpt?
A.Stalin veers off topic, distracting his audience rather than admitting he was wrong to sign the nonaggression pact. B.Stalin claims he was not wrong to pursue peace, and then he restates that same argument in different words instead of providing evidence. C.Stalin claims he was lying when he attempted to pursue peace, and then he suggests that he was in fact telling the truth. D.Stalin introduces the idea that everyone signs nonaggression pacts, suggesting that doing so was right because it was popular.
B. Stalin claims he was not wrong to pursue peace, and then he restates that same argument in different words instead of providing evidence.
Explanation:
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning common enough to warrant an extravagant name. Realizing how to spot and recognize misrepresentations is a precious aptitude. It can spare you time, cash, and individual pride. Formal fallacies are breakdowns by they way you state something, the thoughts are requested wrong by one way or another.
Should be advancement since cultivation is like a skill or developed quality. Especially since he's of the finer living, thus he's used to advancing fairly easily and quickly.
