PT 133, S2, Q2; "Some political thinkers hope to devise a form of government in which..."
Stimulus argues: laws define government = some individuals will learn to interpret laws = they gain more political power than others = therefore a government respecting every citizen's rights is impossible.
Official answer is >!D!<
But I think the answer is >!B!<
Here's my reasoning. The stimulus specifically says "some individuals will learn how to interpret these laws." plural. The whole causal chain depends on SOME individualSSS learning to interpret laws. D says "if anybody" (could be just ONE person) gains more power, rights get violated. That's broader than what the stimulus actually establishes, and it skips over the mechanism entirely.
B attacks the precondition. If citizens are ignorant of the laws, they by definition CANNOT learn to interpret them, so they can't gain disproportionate power, so rights aren't violated. The argument REQUIRES this not be possible, otherwise the conclusion ("such a government is impossible") falls apart.
Am I missing something or is this question just sloppy?
I'm extremely frustrated. I've encountered a couple of questions like this, where this approach is often what's taught: direct scrutiny of the internal logic of the stimulus. And then I get BS like this. What am I supposed to take away from this error? I wanna learn from this but I don;t know what to come out of this with. "sometimes the stimulus isn't really canon and sometimes it is?" like wtf