The American Revolution arose partly in response to British general se

took me some time to understand what suppress dissent actually means.
since we are talking that any democracy that DOES not enforce... will suppress dissent.
we need an answer that would prove that the above is wrong.

Which of the following, if true, best weakens the argument?

(A) The United Kingdom’s parliamentary system does not have such extensive protections but has never systematically suppressed dissent.
ok, so we have an example of democracy that does not enforce equally extensive protections. moreover, UK has never suppressed dissent. this is a clear weakener.

(B) Many dictators have been very beneficial and constructive leaders for their countries.
well, good for them, but this doesn't actually weaken the argument.

(C) Many democracies have haphazardly used surveillance to monitor dissidents and suppress dissent during times of war.
tempting one. Nevertheless, incorrect one. we are talking about enforcing equally extensive protections, and that by not doing this, the country will suppress dissent. this one is an iSWAT. during war - is not something we are interested.

(D) Some dictators have been supported by the United States.
good for them, but doesn't weaken the argument.

(E) At least some countries in the former Soviet Union now have democratic elections but still suppress dissent.
well, again, not a weakener.

The American Revolution arose partly in response to British general search warrants, which gave arbitrary and intrusive powers to government officers. Thus, the founders created the Fourth Amendment to protect against unreasonable and warrant-less intrusions of privacy by a powerful and partisan federal government. During the 20th century, countless dictators have used arbitrary and intrusive surveillance to monitor and suppress dissidents. Any democracy that does not enforce equally extensive protections will systematically suppress dissent.

Type - weakens

This argument states that the United States created the Fourth Amendment to protect against unreasonable intrusions. It observes that such intrusions are often committed by dictatorships. It then makes a rather sweeping conclusion that any country without similar protections will suppress dissent. Such a broad conclusion could be weakened by citing one case in which that pattern does not hold.

A. The United Kingdom’s parliamentary system does not have such extensive protections but has never systematically suppressed dissent. - This choice cites a country without such protections that does not suppress dissent. One example weakens the conclusion, which said no country would refrain from suppressing dissent without such protections.-Correct
B. Many dictators have been very beneficial and constructive leaders for their countries. - This choice is irrelevant, as the conclusion does not address the effectiveness of different types of government. In fact, as it is limited to democracies; any information about dictatorships is irrelevant.
C. Many democracies have haphazardly used surveillance to monitor dissidents and suppress dissent during times of war. - This choice does not weaken the argument. The conclusion said “systematically suppress dissent” and this statement talks about “haphazard” suppression under special circumstances. Furthermore, we do not know if these democracies had equally extensive protections.
D. Some dictators have been supported by the United States. - Whether or not the United States supported a dictatorship is irrelevant to the conclusion that democracies without extensive protections will eventually suppress dissent.
E. At least some countries in the former Soviet Union now have democratic elections but still suppress dissent. - This choice, if anything, strengthens the argument. It presents the example of democracies without such protections that do suppress dissent.

Answer A

C: any democracy that does not enforce equally extensive protections, such as the fourth amendment, will systematically supress dissent

dissent = opinions

Prem: American revolution rose partly in response to british search warrants to abitrary and intrusive powers.
Prem: 5th amendmend created to protect against unreasonable and warrantless intrusions of privacy by a powerful and partisan federal government
prem: Dictators used arbitrary and intru surveillance to monitor and supres dissidents

Weaken
A shows an example against
B false
C shows example of when it is used in democracies, but this does not serve to argue against the claim that this will be imposed systematically- it merely highlights
the fact the government has the power to supress whenever they want e.g. during times of war
D false
E supports argument

But how can we say that Uk is a democracy or not. How can we assume that fact?

Posted from my mobile device

But, how can we assume that UK is a democracy. Is that okay to assume? Without explicitly told in the given text?

Posted from my mobile device

I'm guessing having a parliamentary system implies democracy? I am really not sure though.

But for option A...nowhere is mentioned that UK is a democracy.......The conclusion talks about democracies not any nation ..Kindly clarify.

Hi expert,
I was confused by the OE. I narrow down to A and E, but in A, how we can know United Kingdom’s parliamentary system is a democratic system?
And in E, how we can know Soviet Union does not enforce equally extensive protections?
Need your ideas and thanks.

I believe a parliament is definitionally democratic. It's a specific kind of democracy.

As for E, we don't know the countries in the Soviet Union do not enforce equally extensive protections. But remember what we're looking for: we want to show that a country without these protections does not HAVE to suppress dissent. (NOTE: We don't need to show that every country that DOES have these protections DOES NOT suppress dissent).

So if a country mentioned in E *does* have these protections and still suppresses dissent, that is actually not relevant to our conclusion. If these countries do not have these protections and suppress dissent, that *strengthens* our conclusion, and we are trying to weaken it.

Yes sir, thanks for your explanation and I understand your logic, but what confused me is how can I know whether a country has such protection, cuz it doesn’t say explicitly in the choice and only say a country’s name...but I think it is not an official question, so I won’t get tangled too much.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.