In response to the objection that if individuals obeyed their consciences, they could decide anything, the author argues that the designated decision makers could decide anything, too. This response is:A) Irrelevant, because the objector does not imply that people should be forced to disobey their consciences. B) Irrelevant, because the author states that responsibility is often an uncomfortable burden. C) Relevant, because the objector does not state that politicians are better decision makers than are other individuals. D) Relevant, because the author implies that politicians ought to obey their consciences, too.

Answer: the correct answer is C) Relevant, because the objector does not state that politicians are better decision makers than are other individuals.

Explanation:

The objector does not say that politicians are better decision makers than anyone else, so the argument that politicians could "decide anything" is relevant. The author reinforces that argument by saying: "A government is made up of individuals who are fundamentally similar to me, and to 'err is human' applies to us all." The author concedes that a government leader or official may be more well informed or expert in a particular issue. Therefore, an individual could accept the decision on the basis that the decision is likelier to achieve a better outcome, but even the decision to decide whether the government is right or wrong still is the responsibility of the individual.