In practice the government will have the last word on what an individual’s rights are, because its police will do what its officials and courts say. But that does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view; anyone who thinks it is must believe that persons have only such moral rights as the government chooses to grant, which means that they have no moral rights at all.

Summarize Argument
This argument concludes that the government’s determination of an individual’s rights is not necessarily correct. This is supported through conditional logic: If the government’s view is correct, then people only have the moral rights that the government chooses to grant; if people only have the moral rights the government chooses to grant, then people do not have moral rights. Thus, the government’s view is not necessarily correct. This argument rests on the implied assumption that it is not true that people do not have moral rights.

Identify Conclusion
The argument concludes by saying the government may not be correct in its determination of an individual’s rights: “That does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view.”

A
Individuals have no rights at all unless the government says that they do.
This is the idea that the author is working to reject; the argument says that the government is not necessarily correct in its judgements of what an individual’s rights are.
B
What government officials and courts say an individual’s rights are may not be correct.
This is the main conclusion that is supported by the rest of the argument. With the implied premise that people do, in fact, have moral rights, answer B has support from the rest of the argument.
C
Individuals have rights unless the government says that they do not.
This answer says:
/rights→ /government granted
If we take the contrapositive, we get
government granted→ rights
The argument says that it is not necessarily true that the government is correct in its judgement of what people’s rights are, so this answer is not supported.
D
The police always agree with government officials and the courts about what an individual’s rights are.
As context, the argument tells us that the police will do what the government says. We don’t know if the police will agree. Further, the claim about the police serves as context.
E
One should always try to uphold one’s individual rights against the government’s view of what those rights are.
This answer provides a value judgement that is not supported by the argument. The argument does not tell us what individuals should do; instead, the argument is discussing whether or not the government is correct in its judgements.

3 comments

Researcher: Hard water contains more calcium and magnesium than soft water contains. Thus, those who drink mostly soft water incur an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension, for people being treated for these conditions tend to have lower levels of magnesium in their blood.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The researcher hypothesizes that people who drink mostly soft water have a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and hypertension than people who drink mostly hard water. This is because hard water has more magnesium than soft water. The researcher’s hypothesis is based on the phenomenon that people being treated for the aforementioned conditions having lower levels of magnesium in their blood.

Notable Assumptions

The researcher assumes that the difference in hard and soft water’s magnesium levels is not negligible. The researcher also assumes that lower levels of magnesium (at least in part) caused people to develop heart disease, stroke, and hypertension, as opposed to the low magnesium levels being an effect of these conditions.

A
Magnesium deficiency is not uncommon, even in relatively prosperous countries with an otherwise generally adequate diet.

This does not affect the argument. The researcher does not discuss magnesium deficiencies: he focuses on the relative magnesium levels in hard and soft water, and the low magnesium levels in the blood of people receiving treatment. We cannot conclude that they are deficient.

B
Magnesium is needed to prevent sodium from increasing blood pressure.

This does not affect the argument. The role of magnesium in maintaining blood pressure is not relevant to the argument.

C
As people age, their ability to metabolize magnesium deteriorates.

This does not affect the argument. We don’t know about the ages of the patients being treated or how age affects one’s likeliness to develop one of the mentioned conditions.

D
The ingestion of magnesium supplements inhibits the effectiveness of many medicines used to treat high blood pressure and heart disease.

This does not affect the argument. (D) suggests those being treated for these conditions cannot take supplements to increase their low magnesium levels. This is compatible with the author’s assumption that lower levels of magnesium increase one’s risk of the conditions described.

E
Compounds commonly used to treat hypertension and heart disease diminish the body’s capacity to absorb and retain magnesium.

This weakens the argument. It exploits the researcher’s assumption that lower magnesium levels caused people to need treatment for the conditions described. (E) says the opposite: that the lower magnesium levels are a result of receiving treatment.


43 comments