Question

Minor premise: The government of England is subjecting the American colonists to laws that take away their unalienable rights.

Jefferson’s reasoning is valid, but what could be added to the minor premise to strengthen the conclusion that revolution is necessary?

Only democracies can protect unalienable rights.

All governments need to take away some of these rights.

Once governments take away these rights, they cannot be returned.

Colonists have previously asked the king to reform these laws.

Answer 1

Best choice: "Colonists have previously asked the king to reform these laws."

Why: Jefferson’s argument rests not only on the fact that rights are being violated but on the claim that the people have exhausted lawful, peaceful remedies and therefore have a right — and duty — to alter or abolish the government. Showing that the colonists petitioned the king and were ignored or rebuffed makes revolution the last reasonable option, so it strengthens the conclusion that revolution is necessary.

Why the others don’t help as much:
- "Only democracies can protect unalienable rights" is disputable and not required for the conclusion; it shifts the debate to what form of government is needed rather than to whether revolution is justified now.
- "All governments need to take away some of these rights" would actually weaken the argument by normalizing rights infringement.
- "Once governments take away these rights, they cannot be returned" is extreme and questionable; it could increase urgency if accepted, but it’s unnecessary and less persuasive than showing that peaceful redress has failed.