Which argument did the Senators who opposed joining the League of Nations make? European powers would combine to dominate the Le
ague’s agenda. Other members of the League were enemies of the United States. The League would not have its own independent source of income. Membership in the League could draw the United States into future wars.
The answer is option 4: <u>Membership in the League could draw the United States into future wars.</u>
Being part of the League of Nations meant being part of an intergovernmental organization aiming to prevent future wars by uniting nations that would not fight each other. It intended to achieve this through collective security as well as disarmament and by settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration, among others.
However, it also meant that if any outside country ever attacked any member of the League of Nations, the other member nations would defend, protect and fight on behalf of the attacked country. The American senators were aware of this, and after the devastation of the World War I (1914-18), most Americans were sure they didn't want to involve in any foreign affairs that weren't aligned with their domestic interests and decided to return to their Isolationist policy instead.
"<span>Membership in the League could draw the United States into future wars" would be the best option from the list, since the United States was heavily isolationist at this point, especially after fighting in World War I. </span>
Consumer benefits: Specialization means that the opportunity cost of production is lower, which means that globally more goods are produced and prices are lower. Consumers benefit from these lower prices and greater quantity of goods.
