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:
Reviewer: The Plain Truth, a biography of the philosopher [#permalink]
06 Aug 2011, 14:27
This post was BOOKMARKED
68% (01:56) correct
32% (01:15) wrong based on 150 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Reviewer: The Plain Truth, a biography of the philosopher Socrates, states that Socrates was both very wise and very poor. The book must be incorrect, because a man possessing such wisdom would surely find a way to avoid poverty.
Which of the following best shows the most significant flaw in the reviewer's argument?
A) Every individual who is wise desires to be a philosopher. B) Socrates would not have been executed by the city of Athens if he had not been influential. C) Conceptions of wealth vary over time, and what is now considered poor would have been very wealthy in Socrates' time. D) Many people who are considered wise are too preoccupied with pursuing wisdom to care about their economic status. E) Although Socrates was not wealthy, he had many wealthy friends who willingly took care of him.
C . Conceptions of wealth vary over time, and what is now considered poor would have been very wealthy in Socrates' time. (wrong- it only talks about chance, the premise clearly says Socrates was very poor, we don't know from which time frame author took the measure of Socrates poverty. Might be very poor even from his days standard.)
D.Many people who are considered wise are too preoccupied with pursuing wisdom to care about their economic status. (Correct- This argument clearly attacks the logic and assumption of reviewer that a wise person necessarily even needs to avoid poverty. This statement clearly says that a wise person who has lots of wisdom simply doesn't cares about his economic status.)
E.Although Socrates was not wealthy, he had many wealthy friends who willingly took care of him. (wrong - This choice doesn't attacks the argument of reviewer in any way. out of scope.)
Im also going with D. As mentioned above, this answer attacks the conclusion. It sets up a qualification that hurts the conclusion.
C doesnt really attack the guys argument. Think about it. C is equivalent to saying that " socrates might have been wealthy". That does not show a flaw the arguement. That flaw is in the conclusion. And the right answer damages the conclusion by showing, that a wise man may not be wealthy. _________________
The conclusion is that the book is incorrect ie Socrates cannot be both wise and poor at the same time. D is just saying that wise people concentrate on being wise and does not attack the Conclusion.
I agree. "D" uses the word "many". "Many" is NOT ALL. Socrates may very well be not among those "many".
And, if the word poverty actually meant wealthy, as suggested in C, the reviewer's reasoning is attacked in the sense that Socrates was not poor(in present day perspective) and wise, validating the correctness of the book and emphasizing the flaw in the reasoning, for reviewer assumed the word poor to be identical to its present day's usage.
reason -- > the book says Socrates was very wise and very poor.
Conclusion -- > book is wrong -- > socrates cannot have been both very wise and very poor
while D may not stand out from the others (from other frnds who have posted their concerns with the use of many in choice D), its still the best one out there
but with C there are a number or flaws (its ironic im using the same word as the question looks for ) ,
1st and the biggest flaw -- asumption u are making is that the book was written NOW. Only then can u justify C what if the book was written during socrates time itself?
2nd flaw : the primus uses an extreme case -- very poor while the choice uses just "poor". you can now say.. oh he is poor.. he sleeps under a fan while most of us have heating and conditioning systems ( and having a fan during that era could have been considered as a monarch) but usually very poor would imply not having enough to get through with a living
and be it then or now or in a 100 years, if u dont earn enough to feed urselves 3 times a day u would be considered very poor.
atleast thats my reasoning and im open to debate anytime until we know the OA
Conceptions of wealth vary over time, and what is now considered poor would have been very wealthy in Socrates' time. THE COMPARISON OF TIME MAKES IT OUT OF SCOPE Many people who are considered wise are too preoccupied with pursuing wisdom to care about their economic status.