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:
Louis: People' intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad [#permalink]
28 Dec 2005, 12:35
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Louis: People' intentions cannot be, on the whole, more bad than good. Were we to believe otherwise, we would inevitably cease to trust each other, and no society can survive mutual trust among its members.
The argument is most vulnerablt to which of the following criticism?
A. It fails to rule out the possibility that a true belief can have deleteriuos consequences
B. Mistakenly assumes that if two claims cannot at the same time both be true, then they cannot at the same time both be false
C. It challenges the truth of the claim merely by calling into question the motives of those that profess that they believe it to be true
D. It assumes without warrant that in any situation with two possible outcomes, the most negative one wil inevitably occur
E. It provides no reason to believe that a statement that is true of a given group of individuals is also true of any other group of individuals
"To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed."
I would go for D.
A - true beliefs are out of scope
B - Only one claim is being made. That there is more bad than good.
C- Motives out of scope
D- she assumes that if society loses trust it will not survive. There are 2 results. Survival, or no-survival. She opts for no-survival.
E- No mention of different groups.
Although I don't quite like the word "motive" but I think C is the best choice. This is how I prephrased my answer - People's intensions can be good / bad. If can't be bad because all these bad things happen.
D is just the opposite..It says that in any situation with 2 outcomes, most negative one would occur... But the premises say that tha author is banking on the postive one..Thats why he said that no society can survive...
Whats the OA?
Here's how I think it is A: The argument is that one needs to trust people's intention because it is more likely to be good than bad. If not,society would crumble. However, it ignores the possibility that even a "truly held belief" can have bad consequences (eg: the Nazis held the super race theory as a true belief...they believed it passionately and whole heartedly) and which will result in mistrust. Hence, one must examine the intent objectively and not agree to it based on trust in innate human goodness.