PT16.S2.Q24

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

This is an unusual argument structure that won't make sense until you've read the last sentence. Basically, what this argument is doing is presenting two separate sub-arguments that lead to contradictory conclusions, then concluding that a key premise of the first sub-argument is false. Let's break this down.

The first sub-argument runs as follows:

Premise 1: The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.

Premise 2: The constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights.

_____

Conclusion: The supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions.

The second sub-argument runs as follows:

Premise 1: Human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to the constitution.

_____

Conclusion: Nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the court's decisions.

Finally, the structure of the main argument looks like this:

Premise 1: These conclusions [the conclusions of the sub-arguments] are inconsistent with each other.

_____

Conclusion: It cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.

To summarize, this argument presents two main premises that lead to contradictory conclusions. Because those conclusions are inconsistent with each other, the argument concludes that the premise presented first (that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power) must be false.