Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorGeneral Method of Reasoning

Legal Scholar: Several commentators argue that the new municipal charter's mandate to "preserve historical character" grants the zoning board the authority to regulate all exterior renovations in the downtown district. But this reading of the mandate is certainly incorrect. If the mandate conferred such sweeping regulatory power over all exterior renovations, the charter’s framers would not have found it necessary to include a separate, specific clause granting the board authority to regulate the exterior paint colors of commercial buildings in that district.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the legal scholar in the argument above?

  1. rejecting a particular interpretation of a mandate on the grounds that this interpretation would render another explicit provision within the same document superfluousCevap
  2. B
    attempting to cast doubt on a claim by showing that it treats a condition necessary for a regulation to apply as sufficient for it to apply
  3. C
    undermining an interpretation by pointing out that it relies on a subtle shift in the meaning of a key term throughout the charter
  4. D
    refuting an interpretation by appealing to outside evidence regarding the historical intentions of the document's authors
  5. E
    rejecting a claim by arguing that it incorrectly elevates background information about the framers to the status of a primary regulatory premise

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the argument rejects a particular interpretation of a mandate on the grounds that this interpretation would render another explicit provision within the same document superfluous.
The correct answer perfectly abstracts the scholar's argumentative strategy. The scholar attacks the commentators' broad interpretation of the 'preserve historical character' mandate by showing that if it were accurate, it would render another part of the charter (the specific clause about paint colors) entirely unnecessary, or superfluous. In legal reasoning, this technique is known as relying on the presumption against superfluity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that the commentators' broad interpretation of the mandate to 'preserve historical character' is incorrect.
Understanding the conclusion establishes what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premises used to support the conclusion.
The premise is that if the broad interpretation were true (giving power over all renovations), then a specific clause in the charter giving power over paint colors would not have been necessary.
Identifying the premises reveals the evidence the author relies upon.
3
Abstract the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The author argues that a proposed interpretation of one part of a rule set must be false because accepting it would make another part of that same rule set redundant or unnecessary.
This abstraction directly answers a 'Method of Reasoning' question by describing the argumentative strategy in general terms.
4
Evaluate the options against this abstract description.
Only the correct option accurately matches this description, specifically using the term 'superfluous' to describe the redundancy.
Matching the abstracted structure to the choices ensures the selected answer accurately describes the method used.

Anahtar Kavram

General Method of Reasoning: Demonstrating Superfluity
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

General Method of Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru