- Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:27 pm
#110786
Hi nicizle,
This is a Most Strongly Supported question, which is basically just a variation of a Must Be True question, in which the correct answer is directly supported by the information in the stimulus, even though it does not need to be 100% certain. One thing to look out for in wrong answers of Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported questions are terms/words that are similar to what appeared in the stimulus, but not exactly the same, which we describe as Shell Game wrong answers. The correct answer generally needs to use either the exact same terms as the stimulus or use equivalent terms such as synonyms.
The stimulus here contains some tricky conditional reasoning that can be helpful to diagram. The last sentence of the stimulus is particularly tricky to diagram.
Reordering the sentence and taking it in parts, we have:
1. the illusion (that laws are the bequest of a long tradition rather than the preferences of contemporary politicians) is necessary for political stability.
This can be diagrammed:
PS -> ILBLT
(for if there is political stability, then there is the illusion that laws are the bequest of a long tradition)
2. the illusion would vanish without this fiction ("this fiction" refers to the prior sentence, specifically the idea or belief that these interpretations embody the intentions of the authors)
This means that "this fiction" is necessary for the illusion.
This can be diagrammed:
ILBLT -> BIEIA
(for if there is the illusion that laws are the bequest of a long tradition, then there is a belief that these interpretations embody the intentions of the authors)
Linking these together we get a conditional chain
PS -> ILBLT -> BIEIA
The contrapositive of the chain would be
Not BIEIA -> Not ILBLT -> Not PS
Answer B is the equivalent of:
Not BIEIA -> Not PS
Don't worry about "political instability will increase" as not being identical to the term "not politically stable," as these are similar enough for the purposes of the question. In other words, if there is no longer political stability, then it's fair to say that political instability has increased.
As for Answer C, it is not the beliefs of the present political leaders that need to be convergent with the beliefs of the authors of the constitution, it is the interpretation of the constitution that needs to be viewed as convergent with the intention of the authors of the constitution. In other words, the present political leaders may have beliefs that are quite different than the beliefs of the authors of the constitution. This isn't in and of itself a problem as long as the way the constitution is interpreted follows (or seems to follow) the intention of the authors. For example, there may be many judges who disagree with certain clauses/parts of a constitution, but as long as they interpret it based on how the original authors intended, then their personal views are irrelevant to the interpretation.
