Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardCircular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

Legal Theorist: Some scholars maintain that customary international law should not be considered binding on sovereign nations unless those nations have explicitly codified those customs into their domestic statutes. This view is fundamentally misguided, as it is a foundational necessity of global jurisprudence that unwritten international customs hold normative authority over state actions regardless of domestic codification. We can be certain of this because the intrinsic framework of global jurisprudence dictates that sovereign states are subject to customary legal norms even in the absence of explicit statutory adoption.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the legal theorist's reasoning?

  1. A
    It trades on an ambiguity in the term "customary," using it in one sense to describe sovereign actions and in another to describe global jurisprudence.
  2. B
    It takes a condition that is sufficient for the normative authority of international law to be a condition that is necessary for that authority.
  3. It bases its conclusion on a premise that merely restates that conclusion using synonymous terminology.Answer
  4. D
    It relies on background information concerning what some scholars maintain as a structural premise to establish the author's own definitive rule.
  5. E
    It treats a subsidiary conclusion about the necessity of explicit statutory adoption as the primary conclusion of the entire argument.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument bases its conclusion on a premise that merely restates that conclusion using synonymous terminology.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the argument commits the flaw of circular reasoning. The author's conclusion is that unwritten international customs hold normative authority regardless of domestic codification. To prove this, the author offers a single premise: that sovereign states are subject to customary legal norms even without explicit statutory adoption. Stripped of the dense academic syntax, the premise and the conclusion are identical statements. The author assumes the truth of the claim they are setting out to prove.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: 'it is a foundational necessity of global jurisprudence that unwritten international customs hold normative authority over state actions regardless of domestic codification.'
This is the primary claim the author is trying to prove against the opposing scholars, signaled by the phrase 'This view is fundamentally misguided, as...'
2
Identify the premises offered to support the conclusion.
The sole premise is: 'the intrinsic framework of global jurisprudence dictates that sovereign states are subject to customary legal norms even in the absence of explicit statutory adoption.'
This is the evidence provided, signaled by the phrase 'We can be certain of this because...'
3
Compare the conceptual meaning of the premise and the conclusion.
The premise and conclusion are logically identical. 'Intrinsic framework' equals 'foundational necessity'. 'Subject to customary legal norms' equals 'hold normative authority'. 'Absence of explicit statutory adoption' equals 'regardless of domestic codification'.
Analyzing the dense vocabulary reveals that the author has provided no independent evidence, only a paraphrased repetition.
4
Match this structural analysis to the answer choices.
The structure describes Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question), which perfectly matches the option describing a premise that merely restates the conclusion.
Identifying the abstract description of the logical flaw is the final step in evaluating the argument.

Key Concept

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)

More questions from this topic