Maverick.         There evidence showing that the convention created a constitution that favored America's ruling class.
                         The constitution created at the Constitutional convention favored America's ruling class.                        DIRECT

April.                 None of the delegates to the constitutional convention profited from the new constitution.
                         Maverick is wrong.                                                                    OPPOSING

Actually, April says that Maverick's argument is silly. The question is, what part of it is silly? For this, we must look at April's premise. Does it say anything at all about statistical or documentary evidence? No it doesn't, so her conclusion cannot be that Maverick is silly to rely on statistical and documentary evidence. (Nor can it be that Maverick is silly to rely on James Beard, because she doesn't say anything about Beard either.) No, April talks about what happened to the delegates after they created the constitution, which I suppose is sort of relevant to what they did at the convention, which makes this an opposing argument. Now the question is, is what happens to a person after he does something a better guide to his intentions at that time that statistical and documentary evidence from the time he did it. If Beard didn't have his evidence, a lack of profit after the convention would be a reason to think that the delegates weren't after profit. But it's not a compelling reason. And the delegates might have unconsciously favored the ruling class, or might have thought "what's good for us is good for everyone," and so on, which means they could have acted to serve their social class without having any personal profit motive. So April's counter-example is actually consistent with Maverick's conclusion, so Maverick's argument is stronger here.

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly Hosted By:
WEBster Computing Services