Support In countries where government officials are neither selected by free elections nor open to criticism by a free press, the lives of citizens are controlled by policies they have had no role in creating. ββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββ ββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββββββ ββ β ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββ β βββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββ ββ ββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββββ
The author concludes that tyrannical countries are prone to civil disorder because citizens play no role in shaping government policy. His reasoning is that, if people donβt understand the purpose of laws, they arenβt likely to obey them.
The support refers to understanding the purpose of laws, but the conclusion refers to shaping laws. But understanding a law might not require having shaped it. For example, even if you had no opportunity to influence a speed limit law, you might still understand why it was enacted.
Therefore, the author must assume that, if you didnβt play a role in creating a law, you canβt understand it. (The contrapositive: If you can understand a law, you necessarily played a role in creating it.)
Analysis by TheodoreMalter
Which one of the following ββ ββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββββ
People who have βββ β ββββ ββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββββ
A free press ββ ββββββ ββββ ββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββββ ββββ ββ β βββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ
Civil disorder cannot ββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββββββ βββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ
People tend not ββ ββββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββββββ ββββββ ββββ βββββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββββ
Civil disorder does βββ βββββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββ β ββββ ββββββ