Self-paced
Claude: Conclusion To introduce greater public accountability into French foreign-policy decisions, France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues. ████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████
█████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Claude argues that to ensure "greater public accountability" on foreign-policy decisions, France should hold referenda on foreign-policy issues rather than relying on election results as a basis for decisions. This is because elections involve multiple issues, and so election results are too "imprecise" to count as a foreign-policy mandate.
Lorraine responds by arguing that, because the general public is "unwilling or unable" to become informed about foreign-policy issues, introducing referenda would lead to "foreign-policy disaster."
9.
Which one of the following █████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ██████████
a
The mechanics of ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███████████ █████████
Incorrect. Lorraine's objection isn't based on the "mechanics" or logistics of holding a referendum, but on the ability of people voting in a referendum to make informed decisions. She doesn't say it's impossible to hold a referendum, but that people voting in the referendum aren't in a position to make good decisions. So (A) wouldn't weaken her objection.
b
Some of the ███████████ ██ █████ ██████████████ █████████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ████████████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████
Incorrect. Remember that Lorraine's objection is based on the general public being "unwilling or unable" to become informed about foreign-policy issues. (B) actually strengthens the idea that the general public is unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues, since some of the information relevant to those issues can't be shared publicly. So (B) doesn't weaken Lorraine's objection.
c
Foreign proponents and █████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██████ █ ███████████
Irrelevant. It might be true that foreign proponents and opponents of particular policies would try to sway French public opinion before a referendum, but it doesn't follow that they would necessarily succeed, or that they wouldn't try to do the same for the public in any other major election, or even for the government officials currently in charge of making foreign-policy decisions. So (C) doesn't even work as a reason against having a referendum, but even if you read it that way, it would still certainly not weaken Lorraine's objection.
d
The general public ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████████████ ██████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████████ ██████████
Correct. (D) is similar to what we pre-phrased in our analysis. The reason the general public has little desire to become informed about foreign-policy issues is that it doesn't have a way to influence foreign-policy decisions. This implies that if the general public had a way to influence foreign-policy decisions, like through these referenda, the general public would be more willing to become informed about foreign-policy issues. This weakens Lorraine's objection.
e
Foreign governments friendly ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████
Incorrect. This is another argument against having referenda, and strengthens Lorraine's claim that instituting referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.