Bunuel
S: People who are old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace. This government clearly regards 17 year olds as old enough to fight, so it should acknowledge their right to vote.
T: Your argument is a good one only to the extent that fighting and voting are the same kind of activity. Fighting well requires strength, muscular coordination, and in a modern army, instant and automatic response to orders. Performed responsibly, voting, unlike fighting, is essentially a deliberative activity requiring reasoning power and knowledge of both history and human nature.
T responds to S’s argument by
(A) citing evidence overlooked by S that would have supported S’s conclusion
(B) calling into question S’s understanding of the concept of rights
(C) showing that S has ignored the distinction between having a right to do something and having an obligation to do that thing
(D) challenging the truth of a claim on which S’s conclusion is based
(E) arguing for a conclusion opposite to the one drawn by S
S says that people who are old enough to fight (17 years old's) should be considered old enough to vote.
T says that this is only true if fighting and voting are the same thing,i.e.requires the same set of skills. T then says that voting and fighting are two different things, both of these require a different set of skills.
Fighting requires strength, muscular coordination and instant and automatic response to orders.
Well as voting requires, thought , discussion, reasoning power and knowledge of History and Human nature.
So S's conclusion is based on thinking that voting and Fighting are the same thing, T challenges this claim, by demonstrating that fighting and voting are NOT the same thing, and just because some one can fight does NOT MEAN that he/she possesses the skills to vote.
Options:
(A) citing evidence overlooked by S that would have supported S’s conclusion
: T is not trying to support S's conclusion, rather T is against it-
INCORRECT (B) calling into question S’s understanding of the concept of rights
: T is calling into question S's understanding of Voting and fighting,NOT S's understanding of rights-
INCORRECT.(C)showing that S has ignored the distinction between having a right to do something and having an obligation to do that thing
: Certainly not true T does NOT talk about rights and obligation-
INCORRECT.(D)challenging the truth of a claim on which S’s conclusion is based
: T certainly challenges S's claim that fighting and voting are the same thing,-
CORRECT.(E)arguing for a conclusion opposite to the one drawn by S
: T does not argue for a opposite conclusion, rather he calls into question S's understanding of Fighting and Voting-
INCORRECT.Ans-D
Hope it's clear.