Greek tragedy, one of the enduring pillars of our belief system, drama

The argument talks about the Western culture. He says that the belief system of the west is based on the concept that
the misfortune a person suffers is that person’s “fault". The misfortune could be anything - losing a job, getting orphaned, injury in natural disasters etc. A person suffers because of his own deeds. Hence, it is surprising that their govt has various plans (which are supported by the general public) e.g. bankruptcy protection, family welfare, unemployment schemes etc. Under these schemes, people are paid money by the govt if they undergo some misfortune. e.g. if a person loses his job, he gets unemployment benefits i.e. the govt pays him a fixed income regularly for some time.
The paradox here is that though the belief system says that the person's misfortune is his own fault, still people broadly support social welfare plans.

As discussed above, (C) is incorrect because it says 'Some people insist' though the plans are broadly supported. This doesn't help resolve the paradox why people generally support these welfare programs.

(E) is correct because it offers an alternative belief system that people follow today. Their religion tells them that people suffering through hardships e.g. natural disasters are innocent (it's not their own fault) and that one needs to assist them. That is why people support the welfare programs.
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The statements above present a paradox. If, as the author implies, the ethos of Greek tragedy still holds as an "enduring pillar of our belief system," an ethos declaring each person's misfortune that person's fault, then the majority of the public should not support "social safety net" programs, which are based on the philosophical position that someone's misfortune is not necessarily his or her fault.

(A) This choice does not resolve the paradox. The observation that the ancient Greeks had few social safety net programs does not explain why the public today supports such programs, while holding onto the ethos of Greek tragedy.

(B) This is an irrelevant comparison. This choice does not say that the public is actually unfamiliar with Greek tragedy, and its greater familiarity with Shakespeare does not explain the paradox.

(C) The fact that "some" people insist that society is to blame for misfortune does not explain why the public today "broadly supports" social safety net programs.

(D) This choice does not resolve the paradox. Perhaps many destitute people do not take advantage of social safety net programs because they feel ashamed -- maybe even guilty, as if they caused their own misfortunes (whether or not they did), in accordance with the ethos of Greek tragedy. However, this observation does not explain why these programs enjoy the broad support of the public.

(E) CORRECT. This statement undermines the author’s assumption that the ethos of the ancient Greeks is the only operative component of the public's belief system. If most people believe in helping innocent victims of natural disasters, then they must believe that there can be "innocent victims" and that not all misfortune is due to the actions and flaws of the individual in question.
_________________

The fact that "some" people insist that society is to blame for misfortune does
not explain why the public today "broadly supports" social safety net programs.

So its not C. "some" is the easiest way to see why C is wrong

Maybe (E)?

Greek tragedy may remain one of the pillars of western belief system but there are other factors to consider too - that is religion.

IMO E is the best answer.
Paradox : People are now contributing towards others misfortune; they should have been let to suffer as during ancient time.

Took time to eliminate C.
E states a reason for people's behavior today; C just gives an explanation for the thought of a few ppl. We do not know what was there previous belief. Hence E

Can someone explain an argument?
I am unable to figure out what author as a whole trying to say.
Especially what statement below implies.

Nonetheless, today the
public broadly supports bankruptcy protection, family welfare and other “social safety net”
programs that shield the destitute in the face of their hardships, at taxpayer expense.

I would like to post my views on this question and more generally on how you resolve paradoxes.

Let us consider the following statements.

Statement 1: He has always followed righteous behavior
Statement 2: He has lied sometimes

The statements seem to go against each other. It seems that both cannot be true at the same time. But you resolve it by considering the fact that he had lied when he had to safeguard a greater righteousness. So he has in effect been always righteous. Paradoxes happen when two facts apparently clash against each other. Paradoxes are usually resolved by taking the big picture into account and therefore enhancing the scope of the given facts. That way the restrictions imposed at the lower level would vanish. You also resolve paradoxes by considering a new information that reconciles the apparently contradicting facts and so on

But in the given problem, the paradox is resolved by replacing the fact with an alternative fact. That is, instead of people following the Greek system, it is taken that people are following current religious practices. Though this looks somewhat weird because you are replacing one of the components causing the paradox itself by some other component. I am not sure how valid is this practice of resolving a paradox. I request that students and also the experts share their views.
_________________

I really dislike this question. I suppose it's a difficult question, but for the wrong reasons: it's difficult because the right answer doesn't make much sense. It's obviously not an official question. Answer C cannot be right, because knowing what "some people" think does nothing to explain why *most* people think something (we know that "the public *broadly supports*" social programs". That really only leaves E, but I don't think it's a good answer, and I find the OE (quoted above) especially problematic:



I've highlighted in red an assumption here that is completely unwarranted. It is perfectly possible for the public to believe that people are to blame for their own misfortune, and yet that these people deserve to be supported anyway. So there's no paradox to begin with unless you make the (in my opinion, bizarre) assumption that I've highlighted in red above, and that's the crux of the question. E only gets at this issue in the most oblique of ways, so I just don't think the question is well constructed.
_________________

Paradox: from Greeks Tragedy , The misfortune is thus that person’s “fault.” then why public broadly supports bankruptcy protection, family welfare and other “social safety net” programs, let them pay their sins posting.php?mode=quote&f=139&p=1494296#?

A. The ancient Greeks had few, if any, such social safety net programs in their society.
--Greeks believe that all misfortune is persons flaw so having such safety net programs woould not have been applied or accepted.
B. The majority of the public is more familiar with the works of Shakespeare than those of Greek tragedy.
-- if people are more familiar with works of Shakespeare then how would that help explain why we have safety net for bankruptcy and all.
C. Some people insist that society, not the individual, is to blame for most accidents.
'some' people insist but largely part still thinks that it is individual's flaw so why there are safety nets ? still unexplained.

D. Many people in financial difficulties feel too ashamed to declare bankruptcy or to take advantage of other social safety net programs.
question is not whether people take advantage of such programs , question is that why such a plan is in place.

E. The religions practiced by most people today strongly encourage people to contribute to charities that assist innocent people injured in natural disasters, such as hurricanes.
--here we go , so it is the religion which is encouraging people to contribute to charities and assist innocent
( which as per Greeks does not exist as all misfortune is result of flaw in individual) and thats why we have such plans in place.

Suggestions and discussion are welcomed . Please feel free to fill gaps in my reasoning.

thanks
Lucky

Greek tragedy, one of the enduring pillars of our belief system, dramatized the concept that the misfortune a person suffers is not an accident, but rather a logical outcome of flaws in that person’s nature; the misfortune is thus that person’s “fault.” Nonetheless, today the public broadly supports bankruptcy protection, family welfare and other “social safety net” programs that shield the destitute in the face of their hardships, at taxpayer expense.

Which of the following, if true, would best resolve the paradox in the statements above?
Namely explain why we all have the greek tragedy in our belief system, but have "social safety net" programs

A. The ancient Greeks had few, if any, such social safety net programs in their society.
The author is talking about our belief system and not the one of ancient Greeks. That's why this information does NOT contribute to finding resolving the paradox. Irrelevant
B. The majority of the public is more familiar with the works of Shakespeare than those of Greek tragedy.
Shakespeare is never mentioned. Out of scope and irrelevant for resolving the paradox
C. Some people insist that society, not the individual, is to blame for most accidents.
While this answer choice goes in the right direction and explains that the society is to blame for the misfortunes of the individuals and the tax-payer has to stand for them, I think the word "Some" is crucial. It just is not strong enough to resolve the paradox
D. Many people in financial difficulties feel too ashamed to declare bankruptcy or to take advantage of other social safety net programs.
Out of scope and irrelevant for resolving the paradox
E. The religions practiced by most people today strongly encourage people to contribute to charities that assist innocent people injured in natural disasters, such as hurricanes.
CORRECT. (E) provides a clear explanation as to who encourages the version that natural disasters (and accidents) do harm to "innocent people". This is contrary to what the Greek had believed. Additionally, we have the word "most", which is significantly stronger than "some" in (C).

One thing I want to reiterate though is - I think the crucial element, which decides whether (C) or (E) is the correct answer here are the words "some" and "most". If we would have had (C) with most, it could also have been the correct answer. This partially explains while the majority has gone with answer choice (C).

Between E and D, I chose D many people who are in difficult situations believe that its their fault but don't ask for help and the society has many programs to help them.

Still don't understand why E is correct.

The paradox here is the change of thinking in public.

as per D, if people are too ashamed to take advantage of social safety net programs then that does not explain and instead exaggerated the paradox as of why there is change in thing of public.

Coming to E it helps to understand why the public has changed its way of thinking. They practice a religion which teaches them to be kind and helpful to needy instead of thinking that it is their fault.

Bunuel

I don't agree with the OA to be honest.

In fact, I find none of the options nearly suitable to be a "fair" answer. Why I believe that:

Question doesn't make real sense

The question tells us that according to the Greek tragedy, misfortune is an outcome of logical flaws committed by a person. This definition is contradictory to what we understand as misfortune. today, as it is defined as something that negatively affects a person / action /... without him being able to influence that variable.

Next, the question says it is a paradox that we still pay for social safety net awards. A paradox is something that is logically flawed / contradictory. But it isn't logically contradictory that someone is at his own "fault" for his misfortune (<-> Greek tragedy belief) and that the general public still supports that person.

Let's just overlook this issue, and assume it would be a paradox.

Answer Choice E

Let's just overlook this issue, and assume it would be a paradox. In doing so, we can, for example, assume that it is a common belief that people who have had misfortune according to the greek tragedy shouldn't be helped, because it is their own fault.

(E) brings forward a new belief system which encourages (financial) support for those in need in case of desasters. But do these natural desasters really belong in the category of misfortunes according to greek tragedy? If so, then (E) is an okay answer.

BUT: Let's say I do something wrong and a hurricane appears. This hurricane can also negatively influence others. But it is the others fault for not having counter acted, and for example, hidden somewhere under the ground. But others can't know every action I take, so living in itself could become a fault. This doesn't seem sound ...

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________