This is one of the toughest abstract questions I have seen
, and I did not find detailed explanation so I thought it is worth to share my view.
It is a long passage
so Let's break the argument first.
(In exam we can resort to some logical indicators to write the gist of the argument. Personally I recommend to write main conclusion so you do not get deceived by wrong answer choices commonly known as traps in GMAT.)Premise 1:The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
Premise 2:Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights.
Conclusion 1:the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions.
Premise 3:However, human rights will be subject to the whim of whoever holds judicial power unless the supreme court is bound to adhere to a single objective standard, namely, the constitution.
Conclusion 2:Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the court’s decisions.
Premise 4:Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other.
Main conclusion:It cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
Now as we have understood the argument in quite detail, let's read question stem and see what exactly is asked. Question stem: The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument.
So we need to answer why main conclusion is flawed? Prephrase: There are 4 Premises and 3 Conclusions.
If you re-read them you will notice that either premises can be true and based on that different conclusions can be inferred. Author does not have proved anything explicitly.
Now let's analyze answer choices. (A) ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that claim
- There is no data that supports general claim. Wrong(B) seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and the decisions based on that view are often accepted as correct
- Widely held? No not at all mentioned in the argument. Wrong(C) rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that claim is accepted by others
- No profit thing is mentioned in the argument. Wrong(D) makers an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of the group as a whole
- No. Single to group shift or vice versa is not the case here. Wrong(E) concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true and some other premise false
- Yes correct. As I said author has not explicitly mentioned which premise is 100% correct, there are equal chances of both the premises to be correct.