Should powerful nations attack relatively weaker nations which pose probable danger to world peace?
Arguments:
1. Yes. War is justified for the noble purpose of peacekeeping.
2. No. War/violence should never be resorted to.

Argument 1: Yes. War is justified for the noble purpose of peacekeeping. This argument supports pre-emptive military action by powerful nations if a weaker nation poses a probable danger to world peace. The reasoning here is consequentialist: if the end (peace) is noble, the means (war) may be justified.
This is a valid argument,so this argument is implicit (acceptable in reasoning).

Argument 2: No. War/violence should never be resorted to. This is an absolute moral stance that violence is never justifiable. While it reflects a pacifist viewpoint, it is too rigid for nuanced policy reasoning, especially in scenarios involving probable danger to world peace. Most real-world decisions require balancing harm versus outcome, so saying violence should never be used makes this argument less reasonable in this context.

Therefore , only Argument 1 is reasonably acceptable (implicit). The correct answer is a) If only 1 is implicit