Question #1450

Answer explanation

Started by Melody · started 2021-01-21 19:59 · last activity 2021-01-30 04:17 · 1 reply

I am struggling with this question because I don't really understand what answer choice E is saying. What is the other possible premise that could be false instead of the first sentence? If the supreme court's role is to protect all human rights but it can't because of two contradicting premises (the constitution is incomplete and resorting to principles outside the provisions of the constitution would be problematic), then it makes sense that the supreme court can't actually protect all human rights. So why is E correct and what does this answer choice actually mean? Thank you!

Replies

shunhe · 2021-01-30 04:17

Hi @Melody, Thanks for the question! (C) is wrong because if you look through the (lengthy) passage, nothing is said about profiting. (E), on the other hand, says that the flaw in the reasoning is that the argument concludes that a premise is false when that premise could be true, and another one false. So the premise that could be true is that the role of the supreme court is to protect all human rights (the first sentence). The argument kind of just assumes that’s false instead of other premises. But other ones could be false. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.