It is absurd to claim that whatever democratic activity the government does not support it does not allow. As a proof, one can see the absurdity in the rephrased version of the claim: No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support. Conclusion: The following claim is wrong: If a democratic activity has no government support, then the government does not allow that activity. Premise: The following claim is wrong: If a democracy is allowed to be pursued, then that democracy must have government support. Basically using a formal logic statement in the premise to support a conclusion, which is the contrapositive of the premise. So this is a circular reasoning. And we are looking for two claims, one is the contrapositive of the other, in the correct answer choice. Only E fits the bill. -- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/7/6 1:06:13)
dear sdcar2010,I am quite confused by this question. In my opinion,the sentence following the word "without" is a premise.so the sentence " No one is allowed to pursue democracy without a government support" equals to " if there is not a government support,no one is allowed to pursue democracy ”. so Conclusion: The following claim is wrong: If a democratic activity has no government support, then the government does not allow that activity.
Premise: The following claim is wrong: if there is not a government support,no one is allowed to pursue democracy . please correct it . thx. |