What I am learning is you have to take your time and read it and apply the steps ! 1. Fact or Argument- This one is clearly an argument. So then I read it slow and apply step 2. Identify the conclusion and underline it! The conclusion is the first two lines of the passage! Underline it and underline the supporting details (premise). This is a main point question so the answer is gonna be an exact restatement of the conclusion. Answer Choice A.
So that's how I got this bad boy correct! I hope it makes sense!
RaviJanuary 18, 2019
@ginaelliott,
Happy to help. @Remone-Davis, excellent participation! Your strategy is great, and I'm happy to see that you're helping your fellow students out on the message board. Keep it up!
In reading the stimulus, we're told that the frequently expressed view that written constitutions are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones is false. But why? This statement needs support, and it's likely the conclusion.
The rest of the stimulus provides support for this assertion, as we're told that a written constitution is just a piece of paper with words on it and that a constitution is a sum of those procedures through which the power of the state is legitimately exercised and limited.
The last sentence sounds like a conclusion, and it is, but it's not the main conclusion of the argument. It's an intermediate conclusion.
If you were struggling with deciding if the first or last sentence of the stimulus is the conclusion, compare the sentences to each other by putting "therefore" between them. If we put sentence one before sentence two with a "therefore" between them, it doesn't make sense, but if we put the last sentence followed by the first sentence with "therefore" between them, we have a statement that makes sense. This tells us that the first sentence of the argument is the main conclusion of the argument.
The question asks us to identify the main point. This means we need to pick an answer choice that accurately captures the conclusion that the frequently expressed view that written constitutions are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones is false.
Answer A is correct; it's a paraphrase of the conclusion, as it says that written constitutions are no more inherently liberal than are unwritten constitutions. This matches what we found the conclusion of the argument to be, so it's the right choice.
Answer B is incorrect because there's no discussion about written constitutions being inherently self-contradictory.
Answer C is incorrect because we have no support from the stimulus that unwritten constitutions are less subject to misinterpretation than are constitutions that have been written down.
Answer D is incorrect because we have no support from the stimulus that liberal constitutions are extremely difficult to preserve.
Answer E is incorrect because the whole point of the stimulus is that written constitutions are not inherently more liberal than unwritten ones, not that there exist criteria for evaluating the interpretation and application of a constitution.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have more questions!
