Questions 2-3 are based on the following.
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to
(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim
(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs
(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma
(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion
(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget
3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
***Moved the 4th question to new thread.
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to
(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim
(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs
(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma
(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion
(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget
3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so
***Moved the 4th question to new thread.
Last edited by airan on Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks
Airan
Airan
