Premise: Anything that intrudes the right to privacy is unconstitutional.

Unless, the constitution allows someone to intrude it, which is specified in option E.

Any government action that intrudes on the right of privacy of an individual is unconstitutional. Therefore, the requirement that students in public school submit to random locker searches is unconstitutional.

Boil it down - the requirement that students in public school submit to random locker searches is unconstitutional.
Pre-thinking - we need something to de-link the right of privacy of an individual and lockers

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the conclusion that random locker searches in public schools are unconstitutional?


A. The requirement is clearly posted throughout each school. - Irrelevant - just because the requirement is posted, it does not make it constitutional

B. The search of lockers helps ensure the safety of the students. - Irrelevant - safety is not relevant

C. Many of the lockers don`t have locks. - Irrelevant

D. Every private school allows random locker searches by its faculty. - Irrelevant

E. The Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter on issues of civil rights, has ruled that students in public school have no right to privacy on public school grounds. - Correct

Answer E
_________________

hi guys i have 1 doubt regarding option E

E. The Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter on issues of civil rights, has ruled that students in public school have no right to privacy on public school grounds.

it says/provide data with regard to public school grounds , and i feel public school grounds and lockers are 2 totally different spaces how can we conclude that if students have no right to privacy on public school grounds than they also dont have any privacy rights in the locker room also or as a matter of fact class room also.

Stem says - government action that intrudes on the right of privacy of an individual is unconstitutional.
So we can think that items belonging to individual are private but individual using it for temporary reasons does not own it.
So we pre think that anything not private can be intruded by government.

Only option E says -
Anything on public school grounds is not individual property. So can be intruded.

Hence E
_________________

I was a bit confused about option E. Because it says on the public school ground.

The conclusion is "students in public school submit to random locker searches is unconstitutional." If we want to weaken this conclusion then we have to introduce something which will say that locker searches are not unconstitutional.

In option E, it clearly mentions the opinion of the supreme court, which is legal. and it also states that on public school grounds there is no privacy for students. This doesn't completely weaken the conclusion but it does to some extent.

A. The requirement is clearly posted throughout each school.
doesn't affect conclusion at all

B. The search of lockers helps ensure the safety of the students.
This one is a bit tempting answer but it does not say anything about privacy or unconstitutional. We assume that safety is more improtant than privacy but its nowhere stated in the stimulus. and doesn't affect the conclusion. So this won't be the answer.

C. Many of the lockers don`t have locks.
Doesn't affect the conclusion at all.

D. Every private school allows random locker searches by its faculty.
the stimulus is talking about Public school and this answer choice speaks about private school. Irrelevant.

E is the correct answer.
_________________

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.
_________________