"Without support from Congress or the President, efforts to avoid compliance with enacted law are not likely to succeed."

Question

What conclusion can be drawn from the statement?

(1 point)
Responses

It is illegal to suspend fire services.
It is illegal to suspend fire services.

It is illegal to suspend mail delivery.
It is illegal to suspend mail delivery.

It is illegal to suspend trash collection.
It is illegal to suspend trash collection.

It is illegal to suspend police services.
It is illegal to suspend police services.

Answer 1

The statement suggests that without the backing of Congress or the President, attempts to avoid complying with existing laws are unlikely to be successful. However, the statement does not provide specific information about the legality of suspending any particular services (fire services, mail delivery, trash collection, police services). Therefore, it does not logically lead to any of the four conclusions listed about the legality of suspending each service.

Thus, none of the options can be directly concluded from the statement provided.

Answer 2

which one is closer?

Answer 3

Given the context of the statement, which emphasizes the difficulty of avoiding compliance with enacted laws without support from Congress or the President, the conclusion that is closest might be:

"It is illegal to suspend police services."

This is because police services are typically governed by enacted laws at various levels of government, and suspending such services would generally require legal authority or justification. However, it is important to note that the original statement does not specifically indicate the legality of suspending any of the mentioned services; it merely highlights the challenges of avoiding compliance with enacted law. Therefore, this interpretation is somewhat speculative and assumes a heavier implication about police services relative to others like trash collection or mail delivery.