The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
Conclusion
It cannot be true that the role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.
Evidence
The argument derives two intermediate conclusions: (a) the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution; (b) nothing but the explicit provisions of the constitution can be used to justify court decisions. These two intermediate conclusions are inconsistent. The argument concludes that the first premise (the role of the court) must be false.
Evaluate
An inconsistency in derived conclusions tells us at least one of the premises in the chain is false — but it does not tell us which. The argument arbitrarily blames the first premise. It could equally be that the constitution actually is explicit about all human rights, or that human rights would not in fact be subject to the whim of judicial power without strict adherence to the constitution.
Goal
Find the answer that says the argument concludes a particular premise is false when other premises could just as easily be the false one.