Question

1.3.7 quiz: analyze a supreme court decision
if a regulation were adopted by school officials forbidding
discussion of the vietnam conflict, or the expression by
any student of opposition to it anywhere on school
property except as part of a prescribed classroom
exercise, it would be obvious that the regulation would
violate the constitutional rights of students.
what is the reasoning in this argument?

a. if students can only discuss vietnam during a class activity, then
they can only be allowed to wear armbands during that activity.

b. if students were kept from discussing vietnam in school, it would
be an obvious violation of their rights, so not allowing them to
wear armbands also violates their rights.

c. if students can only talk about vietnam during a classroom
exercise, then they should be allowed to wear armbands when not
in the classroom.

d. if students were forbidden to express opinions about vietnam in
school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights, so we might

Explanation:

To determine the reasoning, we analyze each option:

• Option A: The argument is about discussing Vietnam, not wearing armbands in class activities. Irrelevant.
• Option B: The original argument states that forbidding discussion of Vietnam (except in prescribed classroom exercise) violates students' rights. This option correctly extends that logic to say that not allowing armbands (a form of expression) also violates rights, as both are about restricting expression/ discussion.
• Option C: The argument is about violation of rights, not about when to wear armbands. Irrelevant.
• Option D: The original argument is definite ("would be obvious"), not "might" as this option suggests. Incorrect.

Answer:

B. If students were kept from discussing Vietnam in school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights, so not allowing them to wear armbands also violates their rights.