The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights

How is Option A wrong. The conclusion is doing what A is suggesting.

Interpret first half of Option A:

"ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim"--> The fact that the role of the Uplandian court is to protect people against abuse of Government Power is the first Claim "itself" and NOT the "data supporting the claim".

Hence A is ruled out as the argument does not provide any "data" in "support" of that claim, it just states that claim.

To explain why E is correct in simplest terms.

X is a claim. But Y is true. X and Y are inconsistent, so X CANNOT be true.

As is clearly visible in this simple deconstructed version of the argument, we have taken Y to be the absolute truth, and this is a flawed assumption. It is equally probable for X to be an absolute truth and Y to be false! That's exactly what E option says.

Hope it helps. Wouldn't mind kudos, if it did


Regards,
Saakhi

A is close. The argument is not focused on one single example but on instances that are not common - cases where human rights are not explicitly mentioned in the constitutions.

The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights, the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions. 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. Therefore, nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify the court’s decisions. Since these conclusions are inconsistent with each other, it cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.

The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed because the argument

(A) ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that argues against that 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 - 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 - 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 - 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

One of the toughest and i got it right

Though already nicely explained in earlier post, this post is an attempt to
How to solve such heavily dosed passage?!!!

Please see that underlined text is our main conclusion that claims that the claim made in highlighted text is false. And how does it reaches such a conclusion; it gives a series of argument in between based on which the main conclusion is made. The blue text are the keywords that give direction to the passage.

First "since" gives one argument and "however" gives another that somewhat gives and opposing argument to the previous argument. After which an intermediate conclusion is made. For me the most keyword is ''therefore" because it gives an intermediate conclusion after which the main conclusion is made. Hence this is the key to our right answer choice. Frankly, if one understands the passage properly picking right answer becomes easier otherwise too difficult. The extreme claim by using "nothing but" hints that may be one choice is considered in the passage as true over other. And this is what E perfectly conveys.

I did understood the passage but the abstractness of the answer choices made things miserable.

Answer E.