Law School Discussion

Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10

Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« on: May 22, 2008, 07:42:00 PM »
Can someone pleez help me with this?

Claude: [blah blah] France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues...[blah]
Lorraine: [blah] Therefore, the introduction of such referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

10. Which one of hte following, if true, provide the most support for Lorrain's conclusion?
Answer is C) Decision by refrendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries frinedly to France could not make reasonable decisoins based on a consistent french line.

I eliminated everyhting else, but I thought C was a weakener. Lorraine's conclusion is referenda would lead to froeign-policy disaster. C says referendum would make decisions upredictable..if friendly foreign countries could not make decisions based on CONSISTENT french line, wouldn't it be good that it makes decisions unpredictable (i.e. inconsistent)?


Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2008, 08:07:06 PM »
Thanks for the response. But I still don't understand why that would be a good thing, if, as stated in the answer choice "france could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent french line." If the answer choice just said, "Decision by refrendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable", that makes perfect sense. But the latter part means that unpredictable decisions are GOOD, since other countries could NOT make reasonable decisions based on consistent french line..

Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2008, 05:30:41 PM »
ahh! that makes sense. I misread it to mean that the latter half of the sentence was an independent premise. Just out of curiosity, how do I know when the latter half is derived from the first half and when they're not? it seems like it could have easily been a two independent premises.