The frequently expressed view that written constitutions are inherently more liberal than unwritten ones is false. No written constitution is more than a paper with words on it until those words are both interpreted and applied. Properly understood, then, a constitution is the sum of those procedures through which the power of the state is legitimately exercised and limited. Therefore, even a written constitution becomes a liberal constitution only when it is interpreted and applied in a liberal way.
If the statements in the argument are all true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
(A) A careful analysis of the written text of a constitution can show that the constitution is not a liberal one.
(B) It is impossible to determine that a written constitution is liberal merely through careful analysis of the written text.
(C) There are no advantages to having a written rather than an unwritten constitution.
(D) Constitutions that are not written are more likely to be liberal than are constitutions that are written.
(E) A constitution is a liberal constitution if it is possible to interpret it in a liberal way.
How will i identify the best Option?
OA B
If the statements in the argument are all true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
(A) A careful analysis of the written text of a constitution can show that the constitution is not a liberal one.
(B) It is impossible to determine that a written constitution is liberal merely through careful analysis of the written text.
(C) There are no advantages to having a written rather than an unwritten constitution.
(D) Constitutions that are not written are more likely to be liberal than are constitutions that are written.
(E) A constitution is a liberal constitution if it is possible to interpret it in a liberal way.
How will i identify the best Option?
OA B
