Bunuel wrote:
Recent highly visible court cases have led some legislators to question the very nature of specific inalienable constitutional rights. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, allowing parents to decline medical care for their grievously ill children, due to religious beliefs. This often sparks debate. If a child can be saved with medical intervention, should the parents be legally bound to accept that treatment, despite religious convictions to the contrary? While freedom of religion is inherently good, it is a right that should be preserved according to specific preconditions.
Which of the following represents the most logical continuation of the passage?
(A) However, when discussing this issue, no one can accurately guess the intent of the authors of the constitution
(B) Though, since we hold the truth of these rights to be self-evident, they cannot be questioned or compromised
(C) Yet there will always be those who argue that this freedom must remain absolute to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights
(D) Yet a defenseless child lacks the constitutional rights to intervene medically on its behalf
(E) Clearly, the authors of the Bill of Rights did not anticipate future cases that would require specific protection for the rights of defenseless children
Constitutional rights > argument which questions the effectiveness of the same > it has to be conditional > still some people questions on its integrity
(A) However, when discussing this issue, no one can accurately guess the intent of the authors of the constitution: no discussion for authors of the constitution. Irrelevant.
Reject(B) Though, since we hold the truth of these rights to be self-evident, they cannot be questioned or compromised: it is exactly the opposite.
Reject(C) Yet there will always be those who argue that this freedom must remain absolute to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights:
correct.
(D) Yet a defenseless child lacks the constitutional rights to intervene medically on its behalf: No it doesn't complete the argument.
Reject(E) Clearly, the authors of the Bill of Rights did not anticipate future cases that would require specific protection for the rights of defenseless children: No it doesn't complete the argument.
RejectAnswer is
C