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 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.
B. If students were forbidden to express opinions about Vietnam in school, it would be an obvious violation of their rights, so we might as well forbid armbands as well.
C. If students can only discuss Vietnam during a class activity, then they can only be allowed to wear armbands during that activity.
D. If students can only talk about Vietnam during a classroom exercise, then they should be allowed to wear armbands when not in the classroom.

Respuesta :

The answer is A. 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.

The reasoning in this argument is, 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.

What is violation?

Violation is the act of breaching the code of conduct.

What are rights?

Rights are the legal privileges.

Because it is the students rights to speak about the Vietnam conflict and students have the rights to freely express their opinions and they do not regulate violation, as it is rights of the students.

Hence the correct option is, A. 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.

To know more about violation:

https://brainly.com/question/10282902

#SPJ2