Question

evaluate deductive reason jefferson’s reasoning is valid, but what could be added to the minor premise to strengthen the conclusion that revolution is...? minor premise: the government of england is subjecting the american colonists to laws that take away their unalienable rights. options (from image text boxes): all governments need to take away some of these rights; only democracies can protect unalienable rights; colonists have previously asked the king to reform these laws; once governments take away these rights, they cannot be returned.

Explanation:

Answer:

To strengthen the conclusion that revolution is necessary, the minor premise should connect the situation (England taking away colonists' rights) to the need for revolution by showing that such a government (that takes away unalienable rights) should be opposed/revolted against. Among the options, "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights" doesn't directly connect, "Colonists have previously asked the king to reform these laws" is about prior attempts not revolution need, "Once governments take away these rights, they cannot be returned" shows irreversibility but not revolution need. The best to add (to link the major premise about governments taking rights and the conclusion of revolution) would be reasoning that when governments take unalienable rights (as England is doing), revolution is justified, but from the given boxes, the one that logically connects is likely "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights" is not, wait, re - evaluating: The major premise is "All governments need to take away some of these rights" (wait no, the minor premise given is "The government of England is subjecting the American colonists to laws that take away their unalienable rights". To strengthen revolution conclusion, we need a premise that says when a government takes away unalienable rights, revolution is necessary or that such a government is illegitimate. Among the options, "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights" implies that non - democratic (like England's) governments that don't protect (i.e., take away) unalienable rights should be revolted against (since colonists want their unalienable rights protected, and only democracies do that, so revolution to establish democracy? Maybe). But more directly, if we consider the logical flow:

Major premise (implied): Governments that take away unalienable rights should be revolted against (to be added as minor premise to strengthen). But from the boxes, the option "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights" sets up that England (non - democratic in colonists' view) can't protect, so they need to revolt to get a democratic government that does. So the answer is "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights"