#8 - Specific Reference, Weaken

[Zarie Blackburn]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[bsoil]

Hi there! I got the answer right (A), but only because I found faults in the other answer choices that showed me they don't weaken the argument in lines 57-62. I just don't understand why choice A is right, and I would love an explanation.

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Bsoil,

Good question! Essentially the author argues that the presence of these termination or modification clauses in government contracts is evidence that the powers enumerated in these clauses are not already implicit in these contracts. In other words, the fact that these clauses are there means that if they weren't there, if the clauses were absent, then the powers would also be absent.

In order to weaken this conclusion, we should look for evidence to suggest that these clauses are redundant, they merely spell out what people already know to be true.

This is what answer choice (A) does; answer choice (A) says, "hey everyone already knows the government can do this. We're just spelling it out for you to make double-clear."

For an analogy, consider the "FBI warning" at the beginning of VHS tapes/DVDs. Like, dude, I totally get it that pirating this DVD is against the law. Thanks for the reminder. Even without the reminder, it would still be against the law.

I hope this helps!

[bsoil]

Thank you for your reply and explanation!

So, just to clarify (as I found it hard to wrap my head around):

- Author's argument: the presence of the clauses suggests that the government's power comes from one place and not another

- To weaken: cast doubt on the suggestion of where the power comes from by making it explicit and agreed upon by everyone involved = answer A

Does this sound about right?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Bsoil,

I think you've got it!

The passage suggests that since the contracts spell out certain rights, those rights must come from the contract itself. To weaken that, we could show other examples of contracts spelling out rights that already exist. That would weaken the support for thinking that the termination right was coming from the contract as opposed to from an inherent governmental right.

Great job!

[ShiraLL]

Hi! I was between E and A and went for E because I thought it included more subtly from the passage. Why is A the right answer in terms of refuting the argument that those clauses are included specifically? Aren't lots of obvious/assumed things people agree upon included in contracts all the time? I'm having a hard time w this one...

[katehos]

Hi Shira!

Since this is a Weaken question, let's start by discussing what we're trying to weaken before moving into the answer choices.

This question specifically refers to the argument presented in lines 57-62, which we can interpret to be arguing that because termination and modification clauses are written into contracts, we can conclude termination/modification is not an inherent power. Phrased another way, the author is saying that if these powers were inherent, we would not need to write them into contracts.

In order to weaken this argument, we want to look for something that shows what you mentioned, that assumed/inherent things are at least sometimes written into contracts. This would weaken the argument by making it less likely that the inclusion of termination/modification clauses is indicative of a lack of inherent state power.

Answer choice (A) perfectly counters the argument for this exact reason! If specific provisions often contain restatements of what people already agree to be inherent powers, how could it be the case that such restatements mean those inherent powers do not exist? That wouldn't make sense -- both parties already agree that these inherent powers do exist!

Answer choice (E), on the other hand, doesn't really do much to weaken the argument. Does it matter if termination/modification agreements are interpreted differently by national courts and international tribunals? Does differing interpretations make it less likely that the presence of termination/modification clauses indicates a lack of inherent state power? No -- differing interpretations seems irrelevant! So, we can eliminate (E) in favor of (A).

I hope this helps!
Kate