Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: TM HW LESSON #10 FLAW QUESTION  (Read 295 times)

uwofresh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
TM HW LESSON #10 FLAW QUESTION
« on: August 25, 2005, 02:23:50 PM »
Politician: critics of the wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new more restrictive defintion of the term "wetlands.but this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do.  Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.

The politician's reply to the opponents of wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticism?


A.)It does not adequatley recognize the poosibilyt that the defintion of the word "wet lands" determines the impact of the legislation.

B.) It fails to provide a defnese for a less restrictive definition of wet lands.


Which one is right? and why is the wrong one wrong??
Thanks in advance. :)

jkkjfda

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: TM HW LESSON #10 FLAW QUESTION
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2005, 06:46:52 PM »
B is wrong because the politician is for the new more restrictive definition and against the less restrictive definition, why would he defend the less restrictive one?

uwofresh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Re: TM HW LESSON #10 FLAW QUESTION
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2005, 08:38:54 PM »
B is wrong because the politician is for the new more restrictive definition and against the less restrictive definition, why would he defend the less restrictive one?

then why is A right?

River

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: TM HW LESSON #10 FLAW QUESTION
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2005, 11:06:06 PM »
Politician: critics of the wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new more restrictive defintion of the term "wetlands.but this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do.  Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.

The politician's reply to the opponents of wetlands-protection bill is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticism?


A.)It does not adequatley recognize the poosibilyt that the defintion of the word "wet lands" determines the impact of the legislation.

B.) It fails to provide a defnese for a less restrictive definition of wet lands.


Which one is right? and why is the wrong one wrong??
Thanks in advance. :)


"they disagree with its new more restrictive defintion of the term "wetlands.but this bill will place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than the existing regulations do."

Ask yourself:Without definition of "wetlands"  you may not know the extension or limit of the wetland development.  Thus, if the definition gets clear, they could find a common ground to determine whether and where to put stircter or less stricter limit on development.  Unless otherwise, they will not ever agree with the bill.