Some have used the national security argument to suggest that protectionist policies should be used for select industries. Categorize the items in terms of whether they strengthen or weaken this argument. Each item either strengthens or weakens the argument. This image presents a critical thinking exercise, likely part of a lesson on argument analysis. It features two columns labeled "Strengthens the argument" and "Weakens the argument," both of which are empty. Below these columns is an "Answer Bank" containing three statements that can be used to either strengthen or weaken a given argument:1. "The ability of lobbyists to make a case that nearly any good is vital to national security."2. "The presence of the strategic petroleum reserve, which provides a stockpile of oil that can be used in an emergency."3. "Observing China effectively limiting the world's supply of rare earth metals."The exercise prompts learners to categorize the statements from the answer bank into the appropriate sections to better understand the dynamics of argument support and opposition.

Protectionist policies will be implemented with a main motive to enhance the economic activity within a domestic economy however can be also implemented for safety or quality concerns.The national interest argument for protectionism believes that it will be unwise to import specific key products because when a country becomes dependent on important imported supplies, it could be vulnerable to a cut-off. Thus when China effectively limits the world's supply of rare earth metals it will be supporting protectionist policies. When a product can be touted by politicians and lobbyists as vital to national security will be against the national security argument on protectionist policies to be used for selected industries National security protectionist arguments on the dependency risk of dependency upon other nations for economic sustainability. The presence of the strategic petroleum reserve as an oil stockpile in an emergency will be supporting the dependency risk; thus it will be weakening the arguments