The American Revolution arose partly in response to British general search warrants, which gave arbitrary and intrusive powers to government officers. Thus, the founders created the Fourth Amendment to protect against unreasonable and warrant-less intrusions of privacy by a powerful and partisan federal government. During the 20th century, countless dictators have used arbitrary and intrusive surveillance to monitor and suppress dissidents. Any democracy that does not enforce equally extensive protections will systematically suppress dissent.

Which of the following, if true, best weakens the argument?
a) The United Kingdom’s parliamentary system does not have such extensive protections but has never systematically suppressed dissent.
b) Many dictators have been very beneficial and constructive leaders for their countries.
c) Many democracies have haphazardly used surveillance to monitor dissidents and suppress dissent during times of war.
d) Some dictators have been supported by the United States.
e) At least some countries in the former Soviet Union now have democratic elections but still suppress dissent.

The answer is (A).

The conclusion of the argument is that ANY democracy that does not have the protections against intrusion will supress dissent.
The only reason I did not choose (a) is because 'parliamentary system' does not necessarily mean democracy. In England,
parliamentary system historically refers to the legislative body advising the king. Hence a) does not necessarily weaken the argument.

I spent over a minute during my exam thinking about parliamentary system and democracy :-)

you have a point.

i'm more than a bit surprised that you didn't provide the answer to the question i'm about to ask, but:
...what answer did you pick after all that deliberation? and why?

your answer to this question is key. it's one thing to nitpick answers to questions - i can recall quite a few official questions in which i had at least minor issues with all 5 answer choices - but it's quite another to say that the best answer choice (which can sometimes indeed be the choice with the fewest problems!) is no longer the best answer choice.

if your complaint is 'there are minor issues with choice a', then you're probably right.
if your complaint is 'choice a is inferior to choice ___', though, then speak your piece!

Ron:

My apologies for not writing the answer I picked. I chose (c), as I thought this gives a situation which might justify the use of intrusion by democracies. I was not
too sure about the word 'haphazardly' in the choice, but still picked this one.

thanks.

choice c is irrelevant to the argument.

the argument focuses solely on the relationship between protective measures (against surveillance / intrusions of privacy) and suppression of dissent. choice c simply states that suppression of dissent has occurred (during wartime - an irrelevant qualifier), and makes no connection whatsoever between said suppression and the presence/absence of protective measures.

--

note your use of the words 'might justify'. that's bad. really bad.
in general, you should make no assuptions whatsoever - let alone great big whopping assumptions / logical leaps. you own words - 'might justify' indicate that you are well aware that you're going far beyond the purview of the argument.

Ron:

Thanks a lot. Just one last question along those lines. If I have to guess b/w two choices (most likely I've missed something in the logic and I'm running out of time)
for a CR where X causes Y, would it be safe to pick the one where X does not cause Y.

thanks.

In any weaken the conclusion type, the key thing is to make sure that your choice ties closely to the conclusion. It's not enough to weaken some premise, or something tangentially related. It has to weaken this conclusion, specifically. So if you're debating, pick the one that seems to tie as closely as possible to the specific conclusion. If that also matches with the "x causes y so pick one where x does not cause y" then, yes, go for it.

But on this one - don't actually think of it as "x causes y." Instead, the conclusion is an extreme statement "ANY democracy..." The easiest way to knock down any extreme statement is to cite just one instance that contradicts that statement. If I say "everyone in the world loves pizza" and you say "I don't" - there goes my whole case, because I haven't said only that most people like it. I've staked my claim on EVERYone.

This is why you also shouldn't use extreme statements in your essays - too easy for the essay grader to think of just one instance that contradicts your claim and then that casts a shadow on your entire essay. :)