Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's conclusion?
The advantage of a written constitution is usually said to be clarity: citizens can read what the rules are. But a document is only as clear as its interpreters allow it to be. The American Constitution is a short text, yet its meaning is disputed in nearly every term of its highest court. What gives a written constitution its force is not the clarity of its words but the habit of deference to them, which can exist without a single authoritative text. Conversely, a country can have a perfectly drafted charter that officials ignore. The sensible conclusion is that the form of a constitution matters far less than whether the powerful feel bound by it.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Countries with written constitutions have consistently shown less abuse of power than comparable countries without them
- Step 1: The conclusion says form matters far less than the willingness of powerful people to be bound.
- Step 2: Evidence that written constitutions reliably produce less abuse suggests form does matter.
Answer
Countries with written constitutions have consistently shown less abuse of power than comparable countries without them.
Why not the others: Length, ignored provisions, changes after crises and disagreement among judges are all compatible with, or support, the author's view.
Practise more Constitutions.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.