The author mentions which one of the following as evidence for the eighteenth-century English attitude toward Parliam...
nizhoniSeptember 24, 2019
Question about option B
Why doesn't the statement in the passage, "The most unmistakable sign of this tendency was the the legal assertion that the King was subject to the law" not imply that prior to the early 17th century, the King frequently flouted laws made by Parliament?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
It is certainly possible that the King flouted the laws of parliament before the 17th century. However, that does not necessarily support answer choice B. Even if the English did demand that the King be subject to the law, that does not necessarily mean that they felt their interests were more secure in the hands of parliament. To me, this seems to be more about what the King is personally allowed to do rather than how he is allowed to govern.
These are inferences we do not need to make, because the question is asking us for something specifically mentioned in the passage. Parliament's ability to amend the constitution is specifically mentioned on line 35.
Does that make sense?
rinavalerianoMay 29, 2020
I also chose B and would like a better explanation as to why it is wrong. Also, please explain in a different way the correct answer choice? None of the explanations are clicking with me.
