The answer:
Therefore, the example of the Dred Scott case helps to strengthen the Counterpoint author's argument against flag burning by highlighting the potential flaws in Supreme Court rulings, including the decision to protecting flag burning.
Step-by-step explanation:
The example of the Dred Scott case in Paragraph 4 of the second essay adds to the development of the Counterpoint author's argument against flag burning by option d. It dismisses the Supreme Court's flag burning decision by showing how flawed its rulings can be.
In the essay, the Counterpoint author uses the Dred Scott case as an example to illustrate the potential flaws in Supreme Court rulings. The Dred Scott case was a controversial decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved African Americans were not citizens and therefore could not sue for their freedom. This decision is widely seen as one of the most flawed and unjust rulings in Supreme Court history.
By bringing up the Dred Scott case, the Counterpoint author implies that the Supreme Court is not infallible and can make mistakes in its rulings. This argument is then extended to the Supreme Court's decision protecting flag burning. The Counterpoint author suggests that just as the Dred Scott decision was flawed, so too may be the decision to protect flag burning
hoped this helped :)