#5 - The frequently expressed view that written

[Juanq42]

Hello,

I read through the previous conversation and seem to have the same confusion... but I was unable to clarify my misunderstanding. Given that the previous question asked for a main point, and there was conditional reasoning present in the stimulus, I don't fully understand why we wouldn't want to at the very least diagram the conditional reasoning to help us find losers in the answer choices...

I understood the argument as followed-

MP: written constitutions are no more inherently liberal than are unwritten constitutions.

Premise 1: Written constitution is more than a paper with words on it the words are interpreted AND applied
(Contrapositive: the words words are NOT interpreted or NOT applied written constitution is NOT more than a paper with words on it

Premise 2: (PROCEDURES) power of the state is legitimately exercised AND limited Any* constitution is the sum of power of the state

Conclusion: Written constitution becomes a liberal constitution written constitution has liberal interpretation AND liberal application
(Contrapositive: NOT liberal interpretation OR NOT liberal application written constitution does NOT become a liberal constitution

Seeing that the stimulus makes a distinction between WRITTEN and UNWRITTEN constitutions, I tried to tie these together. The conclusion made it seem as if the argument outlined a "careful analysis" (procedures ?) to determine a constitution is not a liberal one (Answer A).

Can someone please help me with the logic in this question pleaseeee

[James Finch]

Hi Juan,

The big issue with (A) is also the reason that (B) is correct: the subsidiary conclusion is a conditional statement that we must reply, and as you note contains two necessary conditions, both of which must be fulfilled for a constitution to be considered liberal: interpretation (so a reading of the text *by a government*) and application (how governments act). So if we're missing either condition, or if we don't know one of the conditions, then we can't say the constitution is liberal, while it will be definitively not liberal if either interpreted as illiberal or applied in an illiberal way.

The key here is understanding what is meant by "interpretation:" the second premise combined with the first makes it clear that it is a government's interpretation and application of a constitution rather than, say, a legal scholar's opinion that defines whether it is liberal or not. Otherwise, the text itself is just words on a page, and so a "careful analysis" of the text doesn't necessarily yield any insight into the nature of the constitution itself, which can only be understood by the actions of the government that operates under that constitution.

Hope this clears things up!

[Juanq42]

Thank you so much!!

Definitely cleared a lot, and after a period of time not looking at this question, it really helped me understand the structure of the argument.

To confirm then, the subsidiary conclusion in this question refers to
"Therefore, even a written.....applied in a liberal way."

While the overall conclusion refers to the claim that "it is false that written constitution are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones."

And B can be answered by its conditional reasoning that I drew:
Written constitution becomes a liberal constitution written constitution has liberal interpretation AND liberal application

In that sense, B makes use of its contrapositive -- saying that if we only carefully analyze a written constitution (NOT a liberal interpretation and NOT a liberal application) then it is impossible to deem it liberal. Making B true.

Likewise, the stimulus never qualifies a "interpretation and application" as a careful analysis. So we can eliminate A.

Thank you in advance for the response!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Juan,

You've correctly identified the subsidiary conclusion and main conclusion of the argument in the stimulus. You also have the proper understanding of the conditional relationship expressed in the subsidiary conclusion, and you've correctly noted the way that answer choice B applies the contrapositive of that expressed conditional relationship.

Let me clarify a little what the stimulus is saying about interpretation and application. The third sentence clarifies what it means for a written constitution to be both interpreted and applied: it means "the sum of those procedures through which the power of the state is legitimately exercised and limited." Thus, there is a procedural element to the interpretation and application that goes into making a document a constitution. Since answer choice A only refers to "careful analysis of the written text" (i.e. just looking at and correctly understanding the written words on the page), it is clearly not referring to the procedures through which the power of the state is exercised and limited. And we know therefore from the stimulus that such careful analysis alone will not reveal the true nature of the constitution (i.e., is it liberal or not).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Juanq42]

Thanks so much Jeremy and James!!

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I unfortunately chose (E) for my answer, although I understand why (B) is correct. Can you please let me know if my reasoning on why (E) is wrong is correct and applicable?

(E) states that a constitution IS a liberal constitution. I have an issue with the wording of this answer choice for two reasons: 1) answer choice says constitution whereas author explicitly describes interpreting WRITTEN constitution, therefore this answer choice could be describing a oral constitution or something other than what the author is describing and 2) author states that the written constitution BECOMES a liberal constitution when someone interprets as such but answer choice states the constitution IS a liberal constitution. Perhaps this would be correct IF the answer choice stated "A written constitution can BECOME liberal if it is interpreted as such".

I understood the stimulus, I was just nervous about timing myself / running out of time that I jumped the gun.

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

Please answer my question regarding E - thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Andriana,

This is a conditional logic Must Be True question, so we have to work off the conditionals given in the stimulus, specifically the conclusion, which diagrams out to:

ConstitutionLiberal InterpretLiberal and ApplyLiberal

So a liberal constitution is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one, so (E) both reverses the relationship between liberal constitutions and liberal interpretations and leaves out the other necessary condition of applying the constitution liberally. This makes it incorrect.

Hope this clears things up!

[lilglowx]

I need clarification on why E "A constitution is a liberal constitution if it is possible to interpret it in a liberal way." is incorrect. I diagrammed the stimulus as

Liberal constitution ---> Interpreted liberally
AND
Applied liberally.

Choice E only has interpret liberal and not both conditions. Is this why E is incorrect?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi lilglowx,

Answer choice E is wrong, because it's the Mistaken Reversal of what the stimulus says. I think you've diagrammed the last sentence of the stimulus correctly, though the formatting makes it harder to be sure. The diagram of that sentence should be: Liberal Constitution Interpreted Liberally and Applied Liberally.

Answer choice E reverses that relationship (and also adds the notion of what's possible, as a slight change). The "if" in answer choice E is a sufficient condition indicator, thus the answer should be diagrammed: Possible to Interpret Liberally Liberal Constitution. But notice that makes "liberal constitution" the necessary condition, and in the stimulus it's only the sufficient condition. Nothing in the stimulus supports that reversal.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy