Many people in India feel that if we cut our defense expenditure on weapon-building, we can create a climate of peace with our neighbours, subsequently reducing the conflict or creating a no-war situation. People who proclaim such ideas are either the victims of war or the propagators of false argument.

With reference to the above passage, which of the following is the most valid assumption ?

The correct option is: "The greater spending on weapon-building by us would lessen the possibility of armed conflict with our neighbours."

Step-by-Step Explanation:

To identify the most valid assumption underlying the passage's argument, we must break down the author's logic:
1. The opposing view: The passage starts by presenting a common belief: cutting defense expenditure on weapon-building will create a climate of peace, which in turn will reduce conflicts or create a no-war situation with neighbours.
2. The author's position: The author strongly criticizes this belief, stating that people who hold this view are either victims of war or "propagators of false argument."
3. The underlying logic: By calling the idea of "cutting weapon-building to achieve peace" a false argument, the author implies the opposite dynamic. That is, reducing weapon production does not lead to peace. Consequently, the author's argument relies on the premise that maintaining or increasing weapon-building is what actually deters conflict and maintains stability.

Therefore, the crucial assumption that supports the author's rejection of the peace-through-disarmament argument is that greater investment and spending on weapon-building acts as a deterrent, thereby lessening the probability of armed conflict with neighbours.