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

shunhe on August 1, 2020

Hi @schicago,

Thanks for the question! So this is a pretty lengthy stimulus here, but basically, to figure out why this is (E), we should first figure out which premise is the one that is being concluded is false. Well, that’s going to be the first sentence about how the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power; the idea is that this is going to be false, and that’s told to us in the last sentence. So that’s something that happens in the course of the argument.

So now let’s take a look at the next part. Is it equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false? Is there another premise that could be false here, which would change the way that the argument works? Well, let’s take a look at the premise about how “human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard” (here, the constitution). Why can’t this premise be the wrong one? We’re not given a reason to prefer this one over the premise that the argument concluded was wrong, and so (E) sums up the flaw in this argument and is the correct answer.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.