Our very first premise states: "The role of Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power." The author then concludes that sometimes the supreme court must look outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying decisions because the constitution is not always explicit about all human rights. We know that if human rights are not subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power, then the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, i.e. the constitution. The argument then makes another subsidiary conclusion that, therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the court's decisions. And, thus, the argument concludes, since these conclusions are inconsistent, "it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power."
Well, what are "these [inconsistent] conclusions?"
As stated above, there are two smaller arguments in the stimulus:
(1) The Uplandian supreme court must go outside the constitution sometimes because the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights from government power abuse but the constitution is not explicit about all human rights.
(2) The Uplandian supreme court must not go outside the constitution because human rights are subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound solely by the constitution.
These two conclusions are clearly at odds with each other, but the flaw occurs when the author concludes based on this inconsistency that the first sentence cannot be true. It is equally likely that the first sentence is true and a different premise is false, which is exactly what answer choice (E) is saying.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
(D) says, "makes an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole."
In the stimulus, the author makes no mention of each member of a group; rather, the supreme court is discussed as one entity. Because of this, we can eliminate (D).
