The question should be viewed in context. There's an excerpt from Machiavelli on cruelty in politics and then the test subject has to answer three questions:
(a) summarize the argument,
(b) form an opinion of the argument,
(c) use the argument in a practical situation.
These questions are clearly ordered by increasing complexity and test the ability to (a) understand, (b) evaluate, and (c) use an argument. It's intellectually dishonest to take the question out of context. The point of the question is to adapt an argument, not to justify violence.
2010 paper has a similar question. It asks the test subject to adapt Thamus's argument to express concerns about the invention of computer technology.
The question should be viewed in context. There's an excerpt from Machiavelli on cruelty in politics and then the test subject has to answer three questions:
(a) summarize the argument,
(b) form an opinion of the argument,
(c) use the argument in a practical situation.
These questions are clearly ordered by increasing complexity and test the ability to (a) understand, (b) evaluate, and (c) use an argument. It's intellectually dishonest to take the question out of context. The point of the question is to adapt an argument, not to justify violence.
2010 paper has a similar question. It asks the test subject to adapt Thamus's argument to express concerns about the invention of computer technology.