Legal theorist: Governments should not

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Goal1% picked this

   Governments should not be allowed to compel corporate officials to surrender interoffice memos

   This isn't a principle about whether or not a certain type of evidence should be admissible in a trial. This is about the evidence gathering phase: whether or not the government should be allowed to force entities to give them certain forms of evidence.

   1%
2. B

   Opposite Conclusion Match0% picked this

   When crime is a serious problem, governments should be given increased power to investigate and prosecute suspected wrongdoers, and some restrictions on

   Ultimately, this principle is about which types of evidence should be admissible, but it's saying very weakly that some restrictions should be relaxed. We are trying to support a conclusion that is saying, "Don't relax this restriction. It should remain inadmissible for governments to use personal diaries as evidence."

   0%
3. C

   Correct77% picked this

   Governments should not be allowed to use an individual's remarks to prosecute the individual for criminal activity unless the remarks

   Why this is right

   This is appealingly a rule about whether a certain type of evidence (an individual's remarks) should or shouldn't be allowed in criminal prosecution. "Unless" = "if it is not the case that ... " The remarks were govt's should not be not intended for ? allowed to use an other people individual's remarks to criminally prosecute that person The author is trying to prove that "personal diaries" should not be allowed to be used against an individual in their criminal prosecution. Are personal diaries "remarks that were not intended for other people"? Yes, they are. The author establishes that a personal diary is equivalent to a conversation with oneself, speaking to oneself, writing one's thoughts down, or thinking silently. In all cases, those remarks are not intended for anyone but the person thinking them. Since this rule applies to personal diaries, it outputs the conclusion that "governments should not be allowed to use personal diaries to criminally prosecute that individual".

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   77%
4. D

   Weak Conclusion Match22% picked this

   Governments should not have the power to confiscate an individual's personal correspondence to use as evidence against the

   This rule is mostly about whether the government should have the power to confiscate. We wanted a rule about whether or not a certain type of evidence should be admissible in court. If we accept the (strained) idea that a personal diary qualifies as personal correspondence ("Dear Myself, Today was quite a Tuesday ..."), then this answer would tell us that the government doesn't have the power to confiscate Al Capone's diary in order to use it during the trial of Al Capone. But ... if someone gives the diary to the government (Al Capone's neglected daughter, for example), this rule wouldn't stop the government from using that diary in Capone's trial. Since it's not a rule about whether personal diaries are admissible (just a rule about whether or not governments are allowed to confiscate certain items), it doesn't do nearly as good a job at supporting the conclusion as our correct answer does.

   22%
5. E

   Opposite0% picked this

   Governments should do everything in their power to investigate and prosecute

   This doesn't sound like a principle that limits what the government is allowed to use in a criminal trial. It actually sounds like a carte blanche for the government to go after criminals by all means necessary.

   0%