What weakness may occur in law-making in the absence of a constitution?

Correct answer: Laws may become arbitrary and inconsistent

Direct answer: C is correct—without a constitution, laws may become arbitrary and inconsistent. A constitution provides the basic framework for law-making: it identifies the powers of institutions, establishes procedures, and sets limits based on rights and constitutional principles. These limits help ensure that ordinary laws do not simply reflect the personal wishes of rulers or the unchecked preferences of a temporary majority. Without such a framework, one authority might make decisions without proper procedure, change basic rules unpredictably, or pass laws that conflict with citizens’ rights. A is wrong because the absence of constitutional limits does not guarantee justice; it can make injustice easier. B is wrong because removing a common framework generally makes authority and procedure less certain, not clearer. D is wrong because rights do not automatically become stronger when no constitution protects or defines them. C wins because it identifies the danger of arbitrary and contradictory law-making. Memory cue: constitutional limits make law-making predictable, rights-respecting, and consistent.