#21 - Political theorist: Newly enacted laws need a period

[Adam354]

Correct answer:
B) Whether a low should be retained depends primarily on the long-term consequences of its enactment.

I instead chose
E) The long-term consequences of the enactment of a law should be more beneficial than it's short term consequences.

The error was in making the assumptions that "consequences" was negative. Consequences in this context could be positive.

Answer E should have provided a clue as to the correct definition of consequence, also. Since it implies that benefits can come out of consequences.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Adam,

You are right that the word "consequences" doesn't have any positive or negative connotation, though we definitely tend to use it more in the negative in real life. But technically a consequence is just a thing that happens as a result of something else, whether good, bad, or neutral. The conclusion in this argument advocates for waiting to see what the long term effects are before you decide whether or not to repeal a law.

Answer choice (E) doesn't address that conclusion. Why is the immunity period helpful? The premises say that, in general, you go through a painful period in the short term before you can see long term benefits. But if that's usually true for most laws, (E) doesn't really help us much--it still doesn't explain why we need to wait for the long term effects before deciding if the law is any good. How do you decide if a law is good enough to survive? (B) answers that question by saying that whether or not a law should be repealed depends mostly on long term consequences, so we should wait to see how those things play out before deciding if the law should persist.

I hope that helps!
Beth