Statement–Assumption — “With today’s calls to revise the Constitution, we must ask whether the Constitution has failed us, or we have failed the Constitution.” Assumptions: I. Merely revising the Constitution will not help unless people are willing to abide by it. II. Governance and/or compliance are not functioning as they should.
Correct Answer: if both I and II is implicit.
Introduction / Context:The statement contrasts structural change (constitutional revision) with behavioral/institutional failure (citizens and leaders not living up to it). It invites self-scrutiny before amending the text.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Calls for revision exist, implying dissatisfaction.
- Outcomes depend on compliance and governance, not only on written provisions.
Concept / Approach:For the caution to be meaningful, two premises are required: (I) that revision is insufficient without obedience and spirit-of-law adherence; (II) that something is indeed amiss (governance/compliance), hence the question “who failed whom?” Both premises are necessary to motivate reflection over mere textual tinkering.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) I is implicit: otherwise, revision would be the obvious cure without debate.2) II is implicit: without acknowledging problems, the dilemma would be pointless.
Verification / Alternative check:Institutional performance rests on design and adherence; many reforms fail when norms lag.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only one premise undercuts the argument’s balance; “neither” contradicts the explicit dilemma.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming text changes alone can substitute for institutional will.
Final Answer:if both I and II is implicit.