Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what [#permalink]
29 Jan 2008, 00:29
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
If the artificial is not better than the natural, to what end are all the arts of life? To dig, to plow, to build, to wear clothes—all are direct violations of the injunction to follow nature.
If the author’s argument were challenged on the grounds that the construction of buildings has adverse effects on the natural environment, which of the following replies might the author use to respond to the challenge logically?
(A) There are human activities, such as making music, that are environmentally harmless. (B) Harming the environment is not an end, or purpose, of the arts of life. (C) The construction could involve the use of natural, not artificial, materials. (D) Constructing buildings is not an “art of life.” (E) Even if the natural environment is disturbed by the construction of buildings, it is improved for human use.
Re: CR: Artifical vs. Nature [#permalink]
04 Apr 2008, 07:41
It boils down between B and E for me. And since the QA is not yet mentioned above, thus eliminated B and D, so the answer is E!
hehe, okay seriously. Arthur is trying to say, not all natural things are better than artificial things in the life. His argument is although dig,plow,build (construction) are in violation of natural, but it is an art of making our life better.
His first sentence "if the artificial is not better than natural", then how do u justify "dig, plow, build" which makes our life better. This clearly suggest E as the answer.
B is really hard for me. But now I think about it, it is clearly wrong. If B is correct, then we should not dig, plow or build. This is counter intuitive to the author's goal, and he would not defend his argument like that.