Q8

[olaizola.mariana]

I am confused as to why (A) is correct. Why should we assume that parties to a contract are agreeing that states DO have inherent powers to unilaterally change contracts? The parties could be explicitly stating in the contract that states DO NOT have those inherent powers. If so, such an explicit statement would not weaken the argument at all. For it could just be an additional provision in the contracts, complementing termination and modification clauses.

In my opinion, (D) would weaken the argument more because it posits that modification clauses, even if contained in agreements, can be countered by general principles of law that pose some conditions related to financial balance. Thus, a government's capacity to modify such agreements would not depend solely on the contract clauses established by the parties.

What am I missing here?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, olaizola.mariana.

It’s useful to think of strengthen/weaken questions in the Reading Comp section like little LR questions. Just like we would with an LR question, let’s start by finding the argument core:

Termination and modification clauses are often written into government contracts
-->
The ability to modify or terminate agreements derives from contract provisions rather than some inherent power.

Also like in an LR question, our task here is to weaken the connection between the specific premise and conclusion. The author assumes that because a right is written, that right is not inherent. We need to somehow break this.

(A) weakens because it suggests that written rights might also be inherent.

(D) is incorrect because it does not connect to the premise. While it implies that the modification clauses might not be absolute, it does not address the connection between written and inherent rights.

Besides, a right might be inherent while not being absolute. For example, some might say that humans have an inherent right to freedom of religion, yet that right is not so inherent as to permit, say, murder on religious grounds.

(B) is incorrect because it offers a comparison that is irrelevant to the argument.

(C) is irrelevant. Whether a clause is frequently challenged or not does not speak to whether those clauses describe inherent rights.

(E) compares national and international tribunals, which is out of scope of this particular argument, although it is relevant to the passage as a whole.

[olaizola.mariana]

Thank you so much - I understand now!