High School Reading: Grades 11-12 Quiz: Evaluating Seminal U S Texts

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Evaluating Seminal U S TextsQuestion 1 of 12

From an address delivered before the Continental Assembly, 1787 (original composition):

Fellow delegates, we are told that a standing army in times of peace is the surest guardian of the Republic's tranquility. The advocates of this measure point to the disorders in the western counties, to the murmurings of unpaid soldiery, and to the threats of foreign powers who watch our infancy with covetous eyes. From these premises they conclude that only a permanent force of arms, quartered among the citizenry and answerable to the Executive, can preserve what we have so dearly won.

I grant the disorders. I grant the murmurings. I grant even the covetous glances of Europe. But I cannot grant the conclusion, for it does not follow from the premises so much as it leaps beyond them. That some disorder exists proves only that some remedy is wanting—not that this particular remedy is fit. A physician who observes a fever does not therefore prescribe amputation. The question is not whether we require vigilance, but whether the vigilance proposed is proportioned to the danger, and whether the cure shall prove more grievous than the malady.

Consider, moreover, the history of republics that have gone before us. In every instance where the sword was permanently drawn and placed in the hand of a single magistrate, the sword in time turned upon the very liberties it was raised to defend. Rome furnishes the pattern; the Italian principalities furnish the imitation; and shall America furnish the third example?

Which of the following best describes the central flaw the speaker identifies in his opponents' reasoning?

The opponents rely on historical examples that are not analogous to the American situation.

The opponents establish that a problem exists but do not demonstrate that their proposed solution is the appropriate one.

The opponents exaggerate the severity of the disorders in order to justify an unnecessary expansion of executive power.

The opponents fail to consider that foreign powers pose a greater threat than domestic unrest.

← Back to quizzes

High School Reading: Grades 11-12 Quiz

High School Reading: Grades 11-12 Quiz: Evaluating Seminal U S Texts

Practice Evaluating Seminal U S Texts in High School Reading: Grades 11-12 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Evaluating Seminal U S Texts, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for High School Reading: Grades 11-12.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

From an address delivered before the Continental Assembly, 1787 (original composition):

Which of the following best describes the central flaw the speaker identifies in his opponents' reasoning?

The opponents rely on historical examples that are not analogous to the American situation.
The opponents establish that a problem exists but do not demonstrate that their proposed solution is the appropriate one. (correct answer)
The opponents exaggerate the severity of the disorders in order to justify an unnecessary expansion of executive power.
The opponents fail to consider that foreign powers pose a greater threat than domestic unrest.

Explanation: Questions about the "central flaw" in an argument ask you to identify the logical gap the speaker exposes—not just any weakness they mention in passing. Look for the sentence where the speaker explicitly names what's wrong with the opponents' reasoning, then match that to the answer choice that generalizes it accurately. Here, the pivotal moment is the second paragraph: "That some disorder exists proves only that some remedy is wanting—not that this particular remedy is fit." The physician analogy reinforces this: observing a fever doesn't justify amputation. The speaker concedes every premise (disorders, murmurings, foreign threats) but denies that these premises justify the specific solution proposed. That is precisely what B captures—the opponents have shown a problem exists but haven't shown their solution fits the problem. A is tempting because the speaker does invoke Rome and the Italian principalities, but he uses these to reinforce his own case, not to accuse opponents of relying on bad analogies. C misreads the passage: the speaker actually grants the disorders rather than accusing opponents of exaggerating them. D inverts the speaker's point—he never ranks foreign versus domestic threats, and suggesting he thinks foreign threats are underweighted contradicts his overall skepticism toward the standing army. When a passage concedes the opponent's factual premises but rejects the conclusion, the flaw being identified is almost always a logical gap between premise and conclusion—what philosophers call a non sequitur. Train yourself to spot concession language ("I grant... but") as a signal that the author is targeting reasoning, not facts.

Question 2

From an essay on judicial authority, 1803 (original composition):

The power of the courts to declare an act of the legislature void is not, as some contend, a usurpation grafted upon the Constitution by ambitious judges. It is, on the contrary, a necessary inference from the nature of a written Constitution itself. For if the Constitution be the supreme law—as its own terms declare—then any statute repugnant to it must yield; and if any statute repugnant to it must yield, then some tribunal must determine when such repugnancy exists. To leave this determination to the legislature is to make the legislature the judge of its own powers, which is to render the Constitution no restraint upon it at all. To leave it to the executive is to substitute one branch's discretion for another's, without gaining any additional security. There remains, therefore, the judiciary; and to the judiciary the office must fall, not by conquest but by default of any other suitable depositary.

The author's argument depends most critically on which of the following unstated assumptions?

That the framers of the Constitution intended judicial review to be the exclusive province of the federal courts.
That written constitutions are inherently superior to unwritten ones as instruments of popular government.
That the judiciary is composed of individuals more virtuous or learned than those in the other branches.
That the Constitution can function as a restraint on legislative power only if some body outside the legislature is empowered to interpret it. (correct answer)

Explanation: Questions about "unstated assumptions" ask you to find the hidden premise that must be true for the argument to hold together. Think of it as the missing link: if you negate this assumption, does the argument collapse? If yes, you've found it. Here, the author argues by elimination: the Constitution is supreme, so some body must decide when statutes conflict with it; it can't be the legislature (that would let it judge its own powers) or the executive; therefore, it must be the judiciary. The whole chain of reasoning rests on the premise that leaving interpretation to the legislature would gut the Constitution's restraining function. In other words, the author takes for granted that constitutional restraint requires an external interpreter. That's exactly what D captures. A is wrong because the author never claims judicial review is exclusive to federal courts—the passage doesn't even distinguish federal from state judiciaries. B is wrong because the superiority of written over unwritten constitutions is never at issue; the argument begins by accepting the written Constitution as given. C is a tempting trap, but the author explicitly says the judiciary gets this role "not by conquest but by default"—meaning by process of elimination, not because judges are wiser or more virtuous. In fact, the argument would be weaker if it depended on judicial superiority. When tackling assumption questions, try the "negation test": negate each choice and ask which one, if false, would destroy the argument. Only D passes that test here.

Question 3

From an essay on the freedom of the press, 1798 (original composition):

They who would suppress seditious writings argue thus: that a government cannot subsist without the respect of its citizens; that seditious writings destroy such respect; and that the government may therefore silence such writings, as a man may swat the mosquito that would drain his blood.

The argument has a specious symmetry, but it fails at every joint. First, it assumes that the respect which sustains government is the respect that follows from ignorance—for if respect could survive the free examination of governmental conduct, no suppression would be needed. Second, it assumes that the truth of a writing is irrelevant to the question of its suppression, so that true accusations and false alike may be silenced. Third, and most fatal, it assumes that the government, being the party accused, may sit as judge in its own cause and determine what shall pass as sedition.

On any one of these assumptions the argument might be resisted; on all three together, it collapses.

The author's strategy in the second paragraph is best described as:

Refuting the opponents' argument by presenting counter-evidence drawn from historical experience.
Exposing the hidden premises on which the opponents' argument depends and showing each to be objectionable. (correct answer)
Demonstrating that the opponents' analogy between government and a man swatting a mosquito is inapt.
Conceding the opponents' conclusion in a limited form while rejecting its broader applications.

Explanation: Rhetorical strategy questions ask you to describe what the author is doing, not just what the author says. Look for the structural moves: is the writer refuting, conceding, illustrating, analogizing? Then match that move to the answer choices with precision. Here, the second paragraph opens by claiming the opposing argument "fails at every joint," then walks through three assumptions ("First… Second… Third") buried inside that argument. Each assumption is identified and then shown to be untenable—respect based on ignorance isn't real respect, truth shouldn't be irrelevant to suppression, and no party should judge its own case. That's precisely what B describes: surfacing hidden premises and attacking each. A is wrong because the author offers no historical evidence—no examples of past regimes, revolutions, or press cases. The reasoning is entirely analytical, not empirical. C is tempting because the mosquito analogy appears in paragraph one, but the second paragraph never returns to it or dissects why the comparison fails; it attacks the logical assumptions, not the figure of speech. D misreads the passage entirely—the author concedes nothing. He says the argument "collapses," which is total rejection, not partial acceptance. When a passage uses enumeration ("First… Second… Third"), that's a strong signal the author is breaking an opposing position into component parts to attack each. Watch for that structural cue: it usually points toward an answer involving "premises," "assumptions," or "components"—and away from answers about evidence, analogy, or concession.

Question 4

From remarks on the abolition of the slave trade, 1807 (original composition):

Some gentlemen have urged that the abolition of the trade will not diminish the sum of human suffering, since those who would have been transported to our shores will now be sold to other nations less scrupulous than ourselves. The argument, if it be an argument, has a curious character: it proposes that we participate in an evil, on the ground that others will participate in it if we do not.

By such reasoning, no wrong could ever be renounced by any nation, since some other nation might be found to continue it. The pirate might justify his piracy by pointing to other pirates; the thief, his theft, by pointing to other thieves. What is offered as an argument for our continued participation is in truth an argument for perpetual complicity in whatever iniquity our neighbors choose to embrace.

The author refutes his opponents' argument primarily by:

Showing that the empirical premise—that others will continue the trade—is factually incorrect.
Extending the opponents' reasoning to analogous cases in order to reveal its unacceptable consequences. (correct answer)
Arguing that the moral duty to renounce evil is independent of any consideration of consequences.
Appealing to the special character of the United States as a nation founded on principles of liberty.

Explanation: Questions about how an argument works ask you to identify the rhetorical strategy, not just the conclusion. When you see a writer respond to an opposing view, ask yourself: Are they attacking the facts? Redefining the moral stakes? Or showing that the logic itself leads somewhere absurd? Here, the author uses that last move—a technique called reductio ad absurdum. He takes his opponents' reasoning ("we should keep doing X because others will do X anyway") and applies it to parallel situations: a pirate justifying piracy by pointing to other pirates, a thief justifying theft by pointing to other thieves. If the logic works for the slave trade, it must work for these cases too—but clearly it doesn't. That exposes the reasoning as untenable, which is exactly what B describes. A is wrong because the author never disputes the factual claim that other nations will continue the trade; he grants it for the sake of argument and attacks the inference drawn from it. C is wrong because the author isn't making a consequence-free deontological claim—he's showing the opponents' logic leads to absurd consequences, which is itself a consequences-based critique. D is wrong because the passage never mentions national identity or founding principles; it stays focused on the structure of the argument itself. When a question asks how an author refutes an opponent, watch for signal moves: analogies ("the pirate...the thief..."), extensions of logic ("by such reasoning..."), and hypotheticals. These almost always point to a reductio-style strategy rather than a factual or emotional appeal.

Question 5

From an address on public education, 1852 (original composition):

The common school is not, as some suppose, merely an instrument for imparting letters and figures to the young. It is the great equalizer of the conditions of men—the balance-wheel of the social machinery. Wherever the common school flourishes, there arises a citizenry capable of self-government; wherever it languishes, there follow ignorance, faction, and the slow decay of republican virtue. Let the objector who resents the tax that supports these schools consider what he would pay, in prisons and almshouses, were the schools abolished. The dollar he grudges to the teacher he must render tenfold to the jailer.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the reasoning in the passage?

Many nations without common schools have nevertheless produced citizens capable of self-government.
The cost of maintaining prisons has risen more rapidly than the cost of maintaining schools over the past decade.
In several regions where common schools flourish, rates of imprisonment and pauperism have remained constant or increased. (correct answer)
Some teachers in the common schools are inadequately trained and produce students no better educated than those who never attended.

Explanation: When a question asks what would "weaken the reasoning," you need to identify the argument's core causal claim and find the choice that directly undermines it. Here, the speaker argues that common schools cause good citizenship and prevent crime and poverty—so much so that skimping on schools produces greater costs in prisons and almshouses. Choice C strikes at the heart of this claim. If regions with flourishing common schools still show constant or rising rates of imprisonment and pauperism, then the promised cause-and-effect relationship between schooling and reduced social ills breaks down. The speaker's central prediction fails in exactly the conditions where it should succeed. Choice A is tempting but weaker: it addresses only one half of the argument (self-government) and doesn't refute that schools help produce it—other paths existing doesn't disprove this one. Choice B is irrelevant to the argument's logic; comparing rates of cost increase says nothing about whether schools actually reduce crime. Choice D attacks the quality of some teachers, not the institution's overall social effect—the speaker could easily concede this without abandoning the main claim. The trap in A is treating "alternative causes exist" as equivalent to "the stated cause doesn't work." The trap in D is mistaking a partial exception for a systemic refutation. Strategy tip: On weaken/strengthen questions, always locate the argument's causal spine first, then test each choice against that specific link. The best answer attacks the mechanism itself, not peripheral facts or isolated exceptions.

Question 6

From an oration on civil disobedience, 1854 (original composition):

It is said that even an unjust law must be obeyed until it can be repealed by the regular means; that to disobey is to place oneself above the law, and, by such an example, to unloose the bonds of society altogether.

I reply that this argument confounds two things which ought to be kept distinct. There is a difference between the man who breaks the law because he prefers his convenience to the public good, and the man who breaks the law because he prefers the public good, as conscience discloses it to him, to his own convenience. The first invites imitation in its motive, and if imitated would indeed dissolve society. The second invites imitation only in its motive—that is, in the willingness to suffer for principle—and such imitation, so far from dissolving society, is the very sinew by which societies are held together in times of crisis. The objection thus proves nothing against the second sort of lawbreaking, though it may be granted against the first.

The author's response to the objection turns primarily on which of the following?

A distinction between two kinds of lawbreaking that the objection improperly treats as equivalent. (correct answer)
A denial that disobedience to law ever produces harmful social consequences.
An argument that laws which conflict with conscience are not truly laws at all.
An appeal to historical examples in which civil disobedience strengthened rather than weakened society.

Explanation: When a passage presents an objection and then a reply, your job is to identify the structure of the reply — what logical move does the author actually make? Rhetorical passages often hinge on distinctions, concessions, or redefinitions, so read carefully for those moves. Here, the objection claims that disobeying an unjust law dissolves society by example. The author's response doesn't deny this outright; instead, he splits lawbreaking into two categories: the self-serving kind (which would dissolve society if imitated) and the conscience-driven kind (whose imitation strengthens society in crisis). He even concedes the objection against the first type. His entire reply rests on saying the objection lumps together two things "which ought to be kept distinct." That's exactly what A describes. B is wrong because the author actually grants that one kind of lawbreaking would harm society — he doesn't deny harmful consequences universally. C introduces a claim the author never makes; he doesn't argue that unjust laws aren't really laws (that's closer to a natural-law argument from thinkers like Aquinas or King, but it's absent here). D is tempting because the passage mentions societies being "held together in times of crisis," but the author offers no actual historical examples — his argument is conceptual, not evidentiary. When a question asks what an argument "turns on," look for the pivotal logical move — often a distinction, definition, or concession. Don't be misled by answer choices that sound thematically related but describe a different argumentative strategy than the one actually used.

Question 7

From a treatise on the veto power, 1834 (original composition):

The President, in returning the bill unsigned, offered three reasons: first, that the measure exceeded the constitutional authority of Congress; second, that it favored particular sections of the country at the expense of others; and third, that it committed the Treasury to expenditures which prudence could not sanction.

Of these three reasons, only the first can properly justify a veto. For the veto power was lodged in the Executive as a check upon unconstitutional legislation, not as a general license to substitute the Executive's judgment for the Legislature's on questions of policy. Whether a measure favors one section over another, and whether it is prudent in its fiscal effects, are questions committed by the Constitution to the deliberation of Congress. To veto on such grounds is to convert the Executive into a third house of the legislature, possessing a negative more absolute than that of the other two combined.

Which of the following most accurately describes the author's reasoning?

The author argues that all three of the President's reasons are factually mistaken.
The author argues that the veto power is illegitimate whenever it is used to defeat legislation supported by a majority of Congress.
The author distinguishes between legitimate constitutional grounds and illegitimate policy grounds for exercising the veto. (correct answer)
The author claims that only the judiciary, not the Executive, may declare a measure to exceed the authority of Congress.

Explanation: When a passage evaluates multiple items and treats them differently, your first job is to identify the principle of distinction the author is using. Don't just ask "what does the author think?" — ask "on what basis is the author sorting these things?" Here, the author lists the President's three reasons for the veto: (1) unconstitutionality, (2) sectional favoritism, and (3) fiscal imprudence. The author accepts only the first and rejects the other two. The reason given is crucial: the veto exists as "a check upon unconstitutional legislation, not as a general license to substitute the Executive's judgment for the Legislature's on questions of policy." That's a clean divide between constitutional grounds (legitimate) and policy grounds (illegitimate), which is exactly what C captures. A misreads the passage — the author never disputes the factual accuracy of any reason; the argument is about which kinds of reasons are permissible, not whether they are true. B invents a claim about majority support that appears nowhere in the text; the author's concern is the type of objection, not congressional vote counts. D introduces the judiciary, which the passage never mentions; the author actually implies the Executive may veto on constitutional grounds, so a judiciary-only view would contradict the text. When a passage sorts items into "acceptable" and "unacceptable" categories, always pin down the criterion being applied. Wrong answers on reading questions often distort that criterion by substituting a different (but plausible-sounding) standard the author never actually used.

Question 8

From an essay on the ratification of treaties, 1795 (original composition):

The Constitution provides that treaties shall be made by the President with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate. From this the President's advocates argue that the House of Representatives has no proper role whatever in the treaty process, and must appropriate whatever monies a treaty requires without inquiry into its merits.

But this conclusion outruns its premise. That the House is excluded from the making of treaties does not entail that it is excluded from the funding of them; and the Constitution, in vesting the purse in the House, has committed to that body a distinct and independent judgment. To say otherwise is to hold that one enumerated power silently swallows another—a mode of interpretation which, if consistently pursued, would leave the Constitution a document of one clause after another had been so digested.

The author's critique of the President's advocates rests principally on the claim that:

The advocates draw a conclusion about one power (funding) from a premise about a different power (making), improperly conflating the two. (correct answer)
The Senate lacks the constitutional authority to consent to treaties without concurrence of the House.
The House of Representatives possesses an implied power to reject treaties it deems contrary to the national interest.
The Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of its framers rather than its literal text.

Explanation: Questions about an author's "principal claim" or "critique" ask you to identify the structure of the argument, not just its topic. Look for what the author is actually attacking: is it a factual claim, a value judgment, or—as here—a logical move? The author's key sentence is "this conclusion outruns its premise." That's a logical objection: the advocates start with a premise about treaty-making (which excludes the House) and slide into a conclusion about treaty-funding (which they claim also excludes the House). The author's point is that these are two distinct enumerated powers, and you cannot let one "silently swallow" the other. That precisely matches A—the critique is that the advocates improperly conflate two different powers. B is wrong because the author never disputes the Senate's authority to consent to treaties; in fact, the opening sentence concedes that power. C overreaches: the author defends the House's independent judgment over funding, not an implied veto over treaties themselves. D introduces a framers-vs.-text debate that appears nowhere in the passage; the author's argument is about logical structure, not interpretive philosophy. When a passage uses phrases like "outruns its premise," "does not entail," or "one X silently swallows another," the author is flagging a logical flaw—usually a non sequitur or conflation. Match the answer choice to the type of flaw identified, and be suspicious of choices that introduce outside debates (like framers' intent) the passage never raises.

Question 9

From an address on the rights of labor, 1877 (original composition):

The employers contend that the workingman, being free to accept or refuse the terms offered him, cannot complain of the terms he accepts. If the wages be too low, let him seek employment elsewhere; if the hours be too long, let him decline the position. Freedom of contract, they say, resolves every grievance.

But freedom of contract is a hollow phrase when one party has bread and the other has none. The workingman who must eat by Saturday cannot bargain as an equal with the employer who can wait until Monday. To call the resulting agreement 'free' is to abuse the word 'free' as thoroughly as the tyrants of old abused the word 'justice' when they meant only their own will. The question is not whether a bargain was struck, but whether the parties to it stood on ground level enough for the bargain to deserve the name.

Which of the following best captures the logical structure of the author's response?

He challenges the employers' use of a key term, arguing that their notion of 'freedom' presupposes conditions of equality that do not obtain in practice. (correct answer)
He denies that any workingman ever consents to unfavorable terms, arguing that all such agreements are the result of outright coercion.
He concedes the employers' premise about freedom of contract but argues that other rights, such as the right to a living wage, take precedence over it.
He appeals to the historical practice of governments in regulating labor to show that freedom of contract has never been absolute.

Explanation: When you're asked about the "logical structure" of an argument, you're not just being asked what the author believes—you're being asked how the argument works. Look for the specific move the author makes: Do they deny a premise? Redefine a term? Concede and pivot? Appeal to authority? Here, the employers rest their case on the phrase "freedom of contract." The author's move is to attack that phrase itself, arguing that "freedom" only means something real when both parties can walk away from the table. When one party is starving and the other can wait, calling their agreement "free" empties the word of meaning—just as tyrants emptied "justice" of meaning by using it to describe their own will. This is a challenge to the meaning of a key term, showing that the employers' use of it assumes conditions (rough equality of bargaining power) that don't actually exist. That matches A precisely. B overstates the argument: the author never claims all such agreements involve outright coercion or that workers never consent—only that consent under desperation isn't truly "free." C is wrong because the author doesn't concede the freedom-of-contract premise; he attacks it directly. D introduces historical government regulation, which the passage never mentions. When a question asks about the structure of a response, watch especially for arguments that turn on the definition or application of a key word. Authors often win debates not by rejecting their opponent's values but by showing that a crucial term doesn't mean what the opponent assumes it means.

Question 10

From a pamphlet on the extension of the franchise, 1848 (original composition):

It is objected that women, being by nature disposed to sentiment rather than to calculation, are unfit to exercise the sober judgment which the ballot demands. To this I answer: if sentiment disqualifies the voter, then let us first strike from the rolls those men who cast their votes according to the passions of the hour, the promptings of party, or the flatteries of demagogues. If we shall exclude the sentimental, let us exclude them impartially. But if we shall admit the sentimental among men—as we plainly do, since no test of dispassion is imposed at the polls—then the objection cannot be sustained against women without confessing that the true ground of exclusion is not sentiment at all, but sex.

The argument, in short, proves either too much or too little. Too much, if we mean to enforce it consistently, for it would empty the voting rolls of half their present occupants. Too little, if we do not, for it then becomes no argument at all, but a pretext.

The rhetorical strategy the author employs in this passage is best characterized as:

Appealing to the emotions of the reader in order to arouse sympathy for the disenfranchised and to shame the defenders of the existing order.
Citing statistical and empirical evidence about voting behavior in order to refute the claim that women exercise poorer judgment than men.
Accepting the opponents' criterion and demonstrating that its consistent application would produce results the opponents themselves would reject. (correct answer)
Redefining a key term used by the opponents in order to expose an equivocation between two distinct senses of that term.

Explanation: Questions about rhetorical strategy ask you to identify how an argument works, not just what it claims. Read for the underlying logical move: is the author appealing to emotion, redefining terms, citing data, or turning the opponent's own logic against them? Here, the author grants — at least for the sake of argument — the opponents' premise that sentimentality disqualifies a voter. He then shows that if you actually applied this standard consistently, you'd have to disenfranchise huge numbers of men too, a result the opponents would never accept. This is the classic reductio ad absurdum combined with a charge of inconsistency: "your rule proves too much." That matches C precisely. A is wrong because the passage is coolly logical, not emotional; the author doesn't try to move readers to pity or shame, but to see a contradiction. B is wrong because no statistics or empirical data appear — the argument is purely deductive. D is tempting because "sentiment" is discussed, but the author doesn't claim opponents are using the word in two different senses; he accepts their meaning and attacks the application of the standard, not its definition. A useful tip: when a passage says something like "the argument proves too much" or shows that a principle, applied evenly, would yield unacceptable consequences, you're almost certainly looking at a reductio or consistency argument. Learn to distinguish this from equivocation (which requires a shift in meaning) and from emotional appeals (which target feelings rather than logic).

Question 11

From an argument on the annexation of new territories, 1846 (original composition):

Proponents of annexation reason as follows: (1) The territory in question is contiguous to our own; (2) contiguous territories are naturally drawn into political union; (3) what nature has ordained, statesmanship should ratify; and therefore (4) we ought to annex.

The reasoning has a majestic simplicity, but the majesty conceals a defect. The second premise, upon which the whole chain depends, is offered as though it were a law of physics, when in truth it is at best a tendency, and at worst a euphemism. Belgium is contiguous to France; Portugal to Spain; Canada to ourselves; yet none has been drawn into union with its neighbor. The 'natural drawing' of which the proponents speak is not the operation of geography but the operation of ambition, dressed in geography's clothing. Once this substitution is exposed, the argument reveals itself as no argument at all, but a decorated wish.

Which of the following best describes the author's critique of the proponents' argument?

The author shows that the argument's conclusion does not follow logically from its premises even if the premises are granted.
The author argues that the proponents' first premise, concerning contiguity, is factually inaccurate.
The author challenges a key premise by supplying counterexamples and by suggesting that the premise disguises a different motive. (correct answer)
The author accepts the argument's premises but rejects its conclusion on independent moral grounds.

Explanation: When you're asked to describe an author's critique of an argument, look carefully at which specific move the author makes: are they attacking a premise, attacking the logical connection between premises and conclusion, or offering a competing conclusion? Each of these is a distinct rhetorical strategy. Here, the author zeroes in on the second premise—that "contiguous territories are naturally drawn into political union." Two tactics are used against it. First, counterexamples: Belgium/France, Portugal/Spain, Canada/US are all contiguous pairs that have not merged, which undermines the claim that contiguity naturally produces union. Second, the author suggests the premise is a disguise—what looks like a geographic "law" is really "ambition, dressed in geography's clothing." That double move—empirical refutation plus motive-unmasking—matches C precisely. A is wrong because the author doesn't claim the reasoning is formally invalid; in fact, if premise 2 were true, the conclusion would follow reasonably well. The attack is on premise truth, not logical structure. B misidentifies the target: the author never disputes that the territory is contiguous (premise 1)—that's granted. The challenge is to premise 2. D is wrong because the author doesn't accept the premises, and no moral argument is offered; the critique is analytical, exposing the argument as "a decorated wish." When a question asks about the type of critique, distinguish sharply between (1) denying a premise, (2) denying the inference, and (3) offering counter-values. Misreading which layer is under attack is the most common trap in argument-analysis questions.

Question 12

From a letter on the tariff question, 1832 (original composition):

My dear Sir,—You ask whether the protective tariff can be defended as constitutional. I confess the question has troubled me. The advocates of the tariff maintain that Congress, being empowered to lay duties, may lay them for any purpose it deems conducive to the general welfare, including the encouragement of domestic manufactures. The opponents reply that the taxing power was granted for revenue only, and that to employ it for protection is to exercise a power not enumerated.

For my part, I incline to a middle course. I do not deny that a duty laid principally for revenue may incidentally afford protection, nor that such incidental protection is constitutional. But I cannot approve a duty laid principally for protection, whose incidental effect is revenue; for this inverts the constitutional order and makes the exception into the rule. The test, then, is not whether protection results, but whether protection was the primary object.

The author's argument is best characterized as resting on which of the following distinctions?

A distinction between powers explicitly enumerated and powers implied from those enumerated.
A distinction between the general welfare of the nation and the particular welfare of manufacturers.
A distinction between duties that raise revenue and duties that do not raise revenue.
A distinction between the primary purpose of a legislative act and its secondary or incidental consequences. (correct answer)

Explanation: Questions about the structure of an argument ask you to identify the underlying logical distinction the author uses to sort acceptable cases from unacceptable ones. Read for the pivot — the word or phrase where the author separates what he approves from what he rejects. Here, the author explicitly says he approves a duty "laid principally for revenue" that "incidentally" protects, but rejects a duty "laid principally for protection" whose "incidental effect is revenue." The very same economic outcome (both revenue and protection) is present in both cases — what differs is which was the primary object and which was incidental. That is exactly the distinction in D. A is wrong because the author never discusses enumerated versus implied powers; he grants that Congress has the taxing power and asks only how it may be used. B misreads the passage — the "general welfare" language appears only in the tariff advocates' position the author is evaluating, not in his own distinction. C is tempting but backwards: the author acknowledges that protective duties often do raise revenue (that's their "incidental effect"). His test isn't whether revenue results, but whether revenue was the aim. Strategy tip: On rhetorical-structure questions, underline hedging words like "principally," "incidentally," "primary," and "secondary." When an author uses such paired terms, the argument almost always turns on a purpose-versus-effect (or intent-versus-consequence) distinction — not on whether a particular outcome occurs.