She infers, merely from the claim that increases in weapon acquisition have consistently preceded major wars, that major wars will not occur unless increases in weapon acquisition occur. But just because things happened this way in the past doesn’t mean they will in the future.

The diplomat never claims that we can’t have increases in weapons acquisition without subsequent wars. She claims that we can’t have wars without preceding increases in weapons acquisition.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the conclusion is a restatement of a premise. The diplomat doesn’t make this mistake; her premise and conclusion are distinct.

The diplomat doesn’t mention this, but it isn’t a flaw in her argument. She’s arguing that arms control agreements will stop wars. Whether increases in weapon acquisition are a response to the armament of other nations is irrelevant because those increases may still precede wars.

The diplomat doesn’t mention minor wars but, if anything, (E) would strengthen her argument. She’s focused on the connection between major wars and weapons acquisition, but if minor wars are also preceded by weapons acquisition, this further supports her argument.