Final answer:
Attributes in a military setting, such as those displayed by Cpl Martin, are rated based on their relevance when assigning command inputs, aligning with principles from military strategy texts like Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." Attributes are not rated randomly, nor are they deemed irrelevant or given equal importance, but evaluated for their contribution to leadership effectiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
When assigning command inputs in a military setting, qualities such as courage and development like those displayed by Cpl Martin are essential. However, it is also important to consider how other attributes are rated. The question hints at a need for a structured approach, which can be likened to the principles of military strategy found in historical texts such as Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War." According to Sun Tzu, a great general is not only courageous but also possesses attributes like the power of estimating the adversary, shrewdly calculating difficulties, and a balance of rewards and punishments.
Within the options provided, it would be most logical to say that attributes are rated based on their relevance (Option 3), which aligns with the principle of adapting to circumstances and utilizing all helpful factors beyond ordinary rules. Command decisions, in real-life military applications, should similarly account for various performance criteria, wherein each attribute is evaluated for its contribution to the overall effectiveness and suitability for command.
This evaluation is not random nor are attributes considered irrelevant; instead, they each serve a role in determining the best leadership. Equally, we cannot assume all attributes are given equal importance as some may be more relevant to specific command roles than others. So, the answer to the question is that attributes are rated based on their relevance when assigning command inputs.