Yeah, I figured the wording wasn't entirely perfect, but
Argentina fits better with Chile and Peru than it does with Brazil and Paraguay, if that makes sense. Can anyone think of a better description for the two groups?
Mercosul isn't valid , right?
Please, read again my previous post. The division I suggested to you (and even Declive's one with Mercosur and Andean Countries) is the best that you can have.
If you took Declive's, the list of countries go to this:
Mercosur: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela.
Andean Countries: Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Equador and Colombia.
That is exactly the same I gave you previously (with the exception that Venezuela fits in both of Declive's descriptions). As I told you before, the Andes Mountains divide the continent in two, and historically this division has defined the way we gathers the nations of the continent as the colonial times did also (Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay were - until the Independence War in the 19th. century - part of the same spanish viceroyalty; Chile was a separated one; Peru, Equador and Bolivia were part of the same one; Colombia and Venezuela form another; and Brazil was a colony from Portugal).
Declive and I both live in South America, so we know exactly what are we talking about. Any other way of putting the countries into groups only for what you saw in the differents legs of TAR is forced and incorrect.